Special education advocates are celebrating a recent federal court ruling on a yearslong lawsuit over shortened school days in Oregon schools.

The federal class-action lawsuit claims Oregon failed to ensure students with disabilities receive a full day of education. On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the case should proceed.

This federal ruling reverses a prior dismissal of a case that began years ago. It means that the case, J.N. v. Oregon Department of Education, will return to the federal district court for consideration.

In 2019, four Oregon families, a group of similarly affected students statewide and their legal representatives filed a class-action lawsuit against the Oregon Department of Education.

The lawsuit alleges that Oregon public schools systematically shorten the school day for hundreds of students with disabilities — some as young as 5 and 6 years old — separating them from their peers and limiting their educational opportunities.

They argue that, as a result, the state agency has “failed to fulfill its federal obligations to provide a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment and to provide equal educational opportunities in the most integrated setting.”

Fast forward to 2023, when state lawmakers passed Senate Bill 819 in response to the lawsuit.

SB 819 — which the plaintiffs advocated for and continue to support — repealed Oregon’s shortened school day statute and overhauled ODE’s policies and practices for placing students on shortened school days.

The law says that the use of an abbreviated school day program for students with disabilities should be infrequent and, under most circumstances, used for a limited time. Parents must also receive specific notice and have the right to oppose.

The law also requires data collection and monitoring, complaint investigations, designating and withholding funds for districts that don’t comply, and compensatory education.

Last year, ODE pushed for the lawsuit to be dismissed because the bill was passed and implemented. They argued the case was moot as a result.

But the plaintiffs don’t see it that way. They support the bill and, overall, the work that has been done since it passed. But they argue many of the claims from 2019 still need to be addressed.

“Yes, 819 is a good bill. 819 did good things. It was a stride in the right direction,” said attorney Richard Salgado, speaking on behalf of the plaintiffs in a hearing in San Francisco in June. “But the challenge there is 819 still fell short of actually delivering the relief that was necessary.

“For years, what’s been happening is Oregon has essentially dug itself into a hole on this by having the systemic practice that’s depriving these children with disabilities of receiving … the education they’re entitled to.”

An ongoing issue

Special education advocates point out that, for decades, federal courts have found that excluding children with disabilities from school by reducing the length of their school days or repeatedly sending them home violates federal law.

According to Disability Rights Oregon — one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs in the case — students who miss 10% of kindergarten lag behind their peers by almost a year in reading by the time they reach third grade. Students who miss two days of school per month will miss 1.5 years of instruction by the end of 12th grade.

There are instances when shortened school days may make sense, such as in senior vocational programs. And there are instances when a shortened school day may be appropriate for certain families and their kids.

But advocates like Tom Stenson, deputy legal director at Disability Rights Oregon, argue the practice isn’t being applied in the way it’s intended, or in the way that’s meant to serve kids. Additionally, rural districts or districts with fewer special education resources in general may rely too much on the practice.

“This is not an issue that’s going away, either locally or nationally,” Stenson told OPB. “This is a very real, serious problem.”

As DRO put it, the Ninth Circuit’s decision this week “ensures these students will have their day in court.”

Meanwhile, the education department’s attorney in the June hearing argued the agency was meeting federal compliance before the lawsuit, and they have only improved practices since — through SB 819 and their additional, voluntary changes.

Liz Merah, a spokesperson for ODE, told OPB this week that the agency cannot comment on pending litigation. However, she said, “We can share that Oregon remains deeply committed to ensuring that all students receive appropriate educational services.

“The passage of Senate Bill 819 in 2023 represented significant progress in addressing abbreviated school day practices,” she wrote in an email, “and ODE has been actively working with districts statewide to implement and monitor these important reforms.”

According to ODE data for the 2023-24 school year — the latest available numbers — school districts reported 2,769 students statewide receiving abbreviated school days.

Merah said these numbers reflect students reported under a state statute that ​​encompasses a broader definition than the federally eligible students who are the subject of the lawsuit. She said the count also includes various reasons for shortened schedules, such as medical needs and alternative program schedules.

“ODE has and continues to provide extensive technical assistance to districts, develop guidance materials, and strengthen data collection related to this important issue,” Merah said. “We work daily to support districts in serving all students appropriately.”

The Ninth Circuit Court’s decision this week reverses the 2024 dismissal. The case will go back to the federal district court for further discovery.

News Source : https://www.opb.org/article/2025/07/08/federal-court-ruling-yearslong-lawsuit-shortened-school-days-oregon-students-disabilities/