The Supreme Court seems to think so. You'll be especially interested in Honig v. Doe.
Honig v. Doe dealt with interpretation of a federal statute, not the constitution. Once again, Congress is the ultimate source of the problem.
In the full text of Honig v. Doe, the reasoning is:
As a condition of federal financial assistance, the Education of the Handicapped Act requires States to ensure a "free appropriate public education" for all disabled children within their jurisdictions. In aid of this goal, the Act establishes a comprehensive system of procedural safeguards designed to ensure parental participation in decisions concerning the education of their disabled children and to provide administrative and judicial review of any decisions with which those parents disagree. Among these safeguards is the so-called "stay-put" provision, which directs that a disabled child "shall remain in [his or her] then current educational placement" pending completion of any review proceedings, unless the parents and state or local educational agencies otherwise agree. 20 U.S.C. 1415(e)(3).It's not an issue of the Constitution -- Congress has enacted federal law which places certain conditions on schools which accept federal aid.
To cut the strings, schools must decline the federal funds. Some schools are deciding that this is the way to go. Utah, for example is considering a bill to opt out of "No Child Left Behind", and forego the federal funding. There comes a point where the damage and expense caused by federal regs can be seen to exceed the value of the federal funding.
And since it's legislation, all congress has to do is repeal it, and the courts have nothing further to say about it.