Foley v. Special School District of St. Louis (1998)

By Matthew Chin

Overview

Foley v. Special School District of St. Louis (1998) is a continuation of a case that began in 1996, where the district court ruled that the Special School District (SSD) gave Clare Foley a genuine opportunity to receive their special education services and rejected the Foley family’s claim that SSD was in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) because they would not provide Clare special education services at St. Peter’s Catholic school, which is a private, parochial school. However, in 1997, Congress introduced amendments to IDEA. Under the new amendments, the Foley family appealed the case again, and the appellate court again reaffirmed the district court’s decision.

Summary

Clare Foley, the daughter of Daniel and Margaret Foley, is 12 years old and has been diagnosed with Down Syndrome, along with mild mental disability, causing slower development in areas such as cognition, adaptive behavior, language, fine motor, and gross motor [1]. Upon learning of the diagnosis, the SSD held several meetings to discuss an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for Clare. The Foley family was presented with the IEP plan on January 8, 1992, which they did not sign right away, as they wanted more time to think it over. On January 15, Mrs. Foley contacted an SSD representative to inform them that they would decline enrolling Clare in a public school with the IEP and would instead enroll her in St. Peter’s Catholic School. After the 1992-93 school year, the Foleys asked for Clare to begin receiving services from SSD again. In the “Reactivation/Transfer form,” it suggested that the Foleys were interested in the Special Non-Public Access Program (SNAP), which Mrs. Foley denied having any interest in. Instead, Mrs. Foley asked that SSD provide a special education teacher to coordinate and oversee Clare’s IEP, as well as itinerant speech services, itinerant occupational therapy services, and an aide for reading and math, all to be provided by SSD at St. Peter’s [1]. In her reasoning, she referenced to recent Supreme Court case Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (1993), which ruled that public services, in this case a sign language interpreter that is publicly funded , can be delivered to religious schools without violating the Establishment Clause [1]. The SSD flatly refused and told them that the only way Clare will receive their services is if she transfers to a public school, enrolls in an after-school program, or dual enrolls [1]. Ultimately, the Foleys begrudgingly dual-enrolled Clare in both St. Peter’s and the Kirkwood School District. The SSD’s services helped Clare tremendously as her teachers and work progressively improved, but her parents were still not satisfied that SSD couldn’t provide its services at St. Peter’s. They filed a claim against the SSD, arguing that their rights to access services under IDEA were violated because SSD was unable to provide the services they requested at St. Peter’s. The SSD countered, stating that providing those services at St. Peter’s would be more costly for them. SSD filed for summary judgment, which the court granted, reasoning that SSD offered the Foleys three alternative choices in accordance with state law and that the Missouri Constitution does not allow the types of services the Foleys requested to be administered in a sectarian school [1]. The Foleys once again tried to rely on the reasoning in the Zobrest case, but the court remained firm in its belief that Clare was given “a genuine opportunity for equitable participation,” and the case was closed.

However, in 1997, Congress passed new amendments to IDEA, with § 1412(a)(10)(A) specifically addressing the provision of special education services in private sectarian schools and how the government can fund these services to be administered at private schools [2].

This led the Foleys to reopen the case, arguing that under the new amendments, Clare is entitled to receive the services she requires at St. Peter’s at no extra cost. SSD counters that, under the new amendments, they are not required to pay for Clare’s special education services. The courts once again sided with SSD. The Foleys misinterpreted both the new amendments and the question surrounding their case. The question at the core of the initial case had nothing to do with finances. The question was whether Clare was being given a “genuine opportunity for equitable participation,” to which the court found she was given a genuine opportunity. This would be a different case had Clare been forced to enroll in a private school, as then the amendments may be helpful in providing services to her at St. Peter’s. But because the parents intentionally turned down the offer made by SSD to enroll her in a public school to carry out her IEP and enrolled her in St. Peter’s voluntarily, the laws and amendments do not require SSD to accommodate the Foleys in this manner [2]. It should also be noted that the dual enrollment arrangement that Clare was in shows progress in her academics, so there is also no reason for her to receive these services at St. Peter’s. The new amendment’s purpose is to allow the federal government to step in and provide special education services to those in private schools who need them and are prevented from receiving these services by state law [2]. For those reasons, the initial ruling was upheld.

Impact

This is an important case for understanding how special education laws and regulations operate, as it demonstrates that these laws and regulations are designed to create opportunities for equitable participation, not for general convenience. In other words, it defines the limitations on the rights of parents and disabled children under IDEA. While there is language suggesting that schools can be obligated to pay for services administered at a private institution, it requires that the district exhaust all possibilities before this happens. As mentioned, had Clare’s IEP made clear that private placement was the best option for her, the new amendments and IDEA would ensure that she received the services she required, with the district still covering the cost. However, because her parents intentionally declined several alternatives offered by the SSD to implement Clare’s IEP and voluntarily enrolled her at St. Peter’s, the law does not obligate the district to administer Clare’s services at St. Peter’s, as it was the parents’ choice to move her there.

Court Documents

[1] Foley v. Special School District of St. Louis County, 927, F. Supp. 1214 (E.D. MO. 1996). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/927/1214/2092661/ 

[2] Foley v. Special School District of St. Louis County, 153, F.3d  863 - Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, 1998, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10897689685405943660&q=Foley+v.+Special+School+District+of+St.+Louis+County+%281998%29&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1