Support NeoGAF

[Tripon]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a major decision expanding the scope of students' special education rights, ruling unanimously that schools must do more than provide a "merely more than de minimis" education program to a student with a disability.

In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, the high court rejected the "merely more than de minimis" standard set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver. That language was also used in an opinion in another special education case by Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the opinion for the eight-member court, and he delivered much of it from the bench Wednesday morning.

"When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing 'merely more than de minimis' progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all," Roberts said.

"For children with disabilities, receiving instruction that aims so low would be tantamount to 'sitting idly ... awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out,'" he added, quoting from key 1982 Supreme Court precedent on special education, Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, that also dealt with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

"The IDEA demands more," the chief justice said. "It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances."

He said for children in special education who are in a regular classroom, an IEP should be reasonably calculated "to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade."

For a child for whom a regular classroom is not "a reasonable prospect," the chief justice said, the educational program must be "appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances."

"Of course this describes a general standard, not a formula," Roberts said. "But whatever else can be said about it, this standard is markedly more demanding than the 'merely more than de minimis' test applied by the 10th Circuit."

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2017/03/supreme_court_rules_for_studen.html

 

[Yaboosh]

If Devos knew what IDEA was she'd be really pissed off right now.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I'll read more of the ruling later, but what's in the OP is encouraging. My autistic daughter is on an IEP, and my wife works with special needs kids, and we've all been expecting the worst from Devos. Still are, but this is a nice standard to have set.

 

[dave is ok]

Still no criteria on what an 'appropriate' education is, right?

Just basically saying that appropriate has to be better than almost nothing at all?

 

[Omegasquash]

For those unaware, Neil Gorsuch was grilled on this during his hearing. This is the Supreme Court unanimously saying "no".

 

[Tripon]

Still no criteria on what an 'appropriate' education is, right?

Just basically saying that appropriate has to be better than almost nothing at all?

Inappropriate is getting your ass sued and paying a ton of money when you lose. Trust me, very little districts want to deal with that.

 

[Link]

For those unaware, Neil Gorsuch was grilled on this during his hearing. This is the Supreme Court unanimously saying "no".

I haven't followed the hearing. What was his response?

 

[Yaboosh]

Still no criteria on what an 'appropriate' education is, right?

Just basically saying that appropriate has to be better than almost nothing at all?

It isn't the supreme Court's place to establish curriculum.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Still no criteria on what an 'appropriate' education is, right?

Just basically saying that appropriate has to be better than almost nothing at all?

Seems like that is clarified in the OP. "Achieving passing marks and advancing grade to grade." At least that's the desired outcome.

Which is something I don't fully agree with because it's questionable if it measures growth.

 

[Omegasquash]

And I hope this means that we'll be able to funnel more money into public schools, as IEP's will now be examined more thoroughly, and reviewed (as they rightfully should).

Schools will, and in many cases already do need more funds dedicated to children with special needs, period.

Edit:

I haven't followed the hearing. What was his response?

I think it was along the lines of being "bound be precedent".

 

[LProtag]

Well, the criteria is that a student has a right to an education in the 'least restrictive environment'. As in, they should be given enough supports to stay in general education classrooms, unless their disability is so severe that it prevents that.

In my district at least, there's a ton of thought that goes behind writing an IEP. Since I'm an English teacher I'm regularly at these meetings to provide a general education perspective for my students. I give insights on what supports would be helpful for them to have an equal chance at being successful in my classroom.

Generally this takes the form of extended time, one-on-one paraprofessional assistance, modified assignments, differentiated instruction, study center classes (basically a study hall with a special ed teacher to give additional instruction/assistance), you name it.

Glad to see that the court is making sure that students everywhere get all of this consideration taken into account.

 

[Tripon]

It isn't the supreme Court's place to establish curriculum.

Also, it's supposed to be an individualized educational plan.

To set a hard standard goes against that idea.

 

[Makonero]

Seems like that is clarified in the OP. "Achieving passing marks and advancing grade to grade." At least that's the desired outcome.

Which is something I don't fully agree with because it's questionable if it measures growth.

No, they said that's the standard for abled students. A disabled student has to have an individualized plan, but this ruling states it cannot be just the bare minimum of growth, it has to challenge the child.

But this is on a case by case basis. This isn't any kind of standard.

 

[Speevy]

I teach students in special education. What we need are more paraprofessionals and special education teachers who aren't in meetings, but instead in our rooms helping us.


We also need more money for things like technology that can help them.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

No, they said that's the standard for abled students. A disabled student has to have an individualized plan, but this ruling states it cannot be just the bare minimum of growth, it has to challenge the child.

But this is on a case by case basis. This isn't any kind of standard.

Given the massive range of situations for special needs students creating a broad standard would be very difficult for the courts, no?

 

[FyreWulff]

Good. I've always hated the fact that special education is often literally in the basement of schools, out of sight and barely a thought given to it.

 

[Speevy]

Good. I've always hated the fact that special education is often literally in the basement of schools, out of sight and barely a thought given to it.

You've never heard of the least restricted environment then. Students with disabilities are taught with their non-disabled peers as much as possible.

Now, when we're talking about severe intellectual disabilities, that's another story.

 

[Makonero]

Given the massive range of situations for special needs students creating a broad standard would be very difficult for the courts, no?

Yep, which is pretty much what the court says in its ruling.

 

[Tripon]

Yep, which is pretty much what the court says in its ruling.

It's pretty much the porn ruling. I know what is an appropriate plan is when I see it.

 

[Makonero]

It's pretty much the porn ruling. I know what is an appropriate plan is when I see it.

I mean, each kid needs their own plan. What's challenging for one kid won't be challenging for the other. In this case, Gorsuch and the lower courts used a case for precedent that was about a girl who had impaired hearing and wanted someone to sign during all of her classes in addition to having an extra loud speaker setup that the school already provided. In that case, the girl was doing better than the rest of the class even without having someone sign all of the lessons. The court decided that the school didn't need to do more than they were doing and the idea that a disabled child deserves an "equal" education isn't fair or necessarily possible.

Obviously, that case is not relevant in this one, since autism is a completely different disability and the child was not doing well with the IEPs that the school devised and never bothered to change. They were treating IEPs like a formality and rubber stamping them and the parents balked. They took the kid to a special private school where he did much better, and then they sued the school to have them pay for the private school tuition because they clearly weren't doing their job in providing an adequate education.

The lower courts said, nope, as long as the minimum is done, it's fine. The Supreme Court said, nope, minimum isn't good enough, you need to make sure the IEP is actually individualized and since the kid did improve at the private school, it shows that the public school IEP was lacking.

And that you can't standardize this stuff. Kids are different, disabilities are different, but IDEA states that kids should get more of an education than just "de minimis."

 

[Tripon]

Wonder how Scalica would have voted.

 

[Phobophile]

Wonder how Scalica would have voted.

However he would have, Thomas likely would have followed.

 

[davepoobond]

another job killing regulation

 

[Jenov]

This is great news And unanimous too!

 

[soldat7]

If Devos knew what IDEA was she'd be really pissed off right now.

I laughed out loud, quite literally.