Like many parents of children with learning disabilities, Scott Pitta feels overwhelmed by school meetings to develop a teaching plan for his son’s autism.
Complex and difficult special education terminology. Too many people in attendance. Having to take notes and follow what was being said while advocating for my son, JJ.
Underlying an already stressful situation is often disagreement about what progress is possible and what help cash-strapped schools can realistically offer.
“The reality is that it’s parents who are fighting for what their kids want, and the administration is resisting that,” he said.
In Pitta’s case, the dispute turned hostile when his son’s high school in South Boston objected to JJ’s special needs, challenged the school’s summaries of past meetings and wanted to record upcoming Google Meet video conferences.
Get ready to vote: See who’s running for president and compare where they stand on key issues with our voter guide
The school disagrees, and Pitta now wants the Supreme Court to decide whether parents have a constitutional right to record such meetings.
“Very emotional, very volatile.”
His lawsuit has garnered support from conservative and libertarian groups, who argue that school gatherings are similar to traffic violations or police arrests, and that government actions are protected by the right to record and share information.
The area of educational rights for children with disabilities is one that often draws ideological differences, but other voices — advocacy groups, teachers groups, liberal groups — have not appealed to the Supreme Court. Some have noted that the issue Pitta raises — whether emotional meetings with public officials can be videotaped — raises a lot of “what if” scenarios.
Cheryl Tice, senior education advocate at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, questioned whether the recordings would become public records that schools, as well as parents, could distribute as they wish.
“I’ve seen school districts retaliate against parents by accusing them of inappropriate behavior or issuing trespassing orders for behavior during meetings that can be very emotional and can be very volatile,” Tice said.
“A constant battle”
Pitta said the family has “constantly fought the school system” over what is called an individualized education program, a plan required by federal education law for children with disabilities, throughout JJ’s academic life. (Pitta’s wife, Roxanne, has a doctorate in special education, and recognized early on that JJ needed intervention services.)
The dispute escalated into a legal battle after the Bridgewater, Massachusetts, school district argued that Pitta could audio-record but not video-record online meetings.
Pitta argued that audio alone doesn’t record who is speaking, and if he wants to challenge the denial of service, he needs a complete record.
Mary Ellen Sowaida, an attorney for the school district, told USA Today that the videotaping goes beyond audio recordings that schools are supposed to provide to parents, if necessary, to help them understand the content of the meetings.
Sowaida, speaking about IEP meetings in general and not Pitta’s case, said school officials may be opposed to videotaping because they are concerned about how their footage might be used and want to avoid potential blackmail measures.
Sowidra said most importantly, the court that reviewed the issue said that because the meeting was not a public event, there was no constitutional right to record it.
Aren’t school assemblies a local issue? Why is the Supreme Court involved?
Pitta compares the accountability provided by video recording of school meetings to that provided by police body cameras, arguing that citizens should be able to record every interaction with government officials.
“The public doesn’t interact with the police department every day,” he said, “but they’re going to interact with their local government and their school district several times throughout the year.”
Special education clashes: One student’s Supreme Court decision could impose more liability on schools
Approximately 15% of school-age children have been diagnosed with a disability and are entitled to an individualized education program under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Schools and parents negotiate IEPs for a variety of disabilities, including dyslexia, medical issues, mental illness, Down syndrome, speech or language disorders, and autism.
Monitoring the government through your smartphone
A key issue in the case is whether members of the public have the right to scrutinize government officials, in this case those working for schools, and this is a key issue for groups like the Goldwater Institute, which is representing Pitta on appeal.
The significance of this case extends beyond educational meetings, the group argues, because virtual meetings have become a commonplace part of everyday life and smartphones allow ordinary citizens to record conversations between public officials with the click of a button.
Advocacy groups for students with learning disabilities have not filed arguments with the Supreme Court but are closely watching Pitta’s appeal.
Ann Strober, a parent who works for school support company Weinfeld Education Group, said the recordings provide needed transparency and accountability.
“Unfortunately, without accountability, inconsistencies, falsifications and omissions can become rampant,” Strober said in emailed comments to USA Today.
Jacqueline Rodriguez, chief executive of the National Centre for Learning Disabilities, said conflicts arise because of a fundamental mismatch between parents’ expectations and what schools can provide or believe is necessary.
But the underlying problem, she said, is that the federal government’s promise of individualized support for students with disabilities is not backed up by funding.
“The problem isn’t IEP meetings,” Rodriguez said. “The problem is that education costs are 1 to 2 percent of the federal budget.”
Katie Nease, CEO of the disability advocacy group The Arc and a former senior official in the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education, said the law would work if there was true collaboration between the two sides.
“If parents and schools could build trust, this kind of thing wouldn’t happen,” she said of disagreements that lead to litigation.
A candid conversation off camera
Pitta said she lost trust in the school after it misrepresented whether her son, JJ, should receive extra individualized help in high school.
But judges who have already heard Pitta’s case have said a loss of trust does not require a teacher to make a videotaped allegation.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit wrote that, unlike police officers, school officials are not required to endure the significant burdens that arise from citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.
Even if there is a constitutional right to record a meeting, schools can impose reasonable restrictions if necessary, for example to encourage frank conversation, the committee said.
The Supreme Court rejects most of the thousands of appeals it receives each year and has not required the school district to respond to Pitta’s appeal, but it could decide as soon as this month whether to reconsider its decision.
It’s too late to save J.J.
Even if the Supreme Court were to agree to hear Pitta’s case, the victory would come too late to help JJ, who will likely have graduated by the time the verdict is handed down.
But Pitta, who has heard stories of struggle from other parents, said it’s still a fight worth fighting.
“If the school district says, ‘No, we’re not going to allow it today,’ a lot of parents won’t be able to assert their rights,” he said. “We need something from the courts to say, ‘No, parents have this right.'”