Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the court will decide what is considered "appropriate"?

At issue is whether the standard for FAPE should be whether a school district offers provides "some educational benefit" or "meaningful educational benefit" to a student with disabilities.

Different states and courts have used each standard and the Supreme Court has been asked to clarify. The US Justice Department has weighed in saying that it believes the standard should be "meaningful educational benefit."

Based on what I've read online, the Fourth Circuit (which covers MD and VA) already uses the more generous standard, while the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit uses the more restrictive standard. That means families in VA and MD probably have nothing to gain from this case (unless the dicta in the case turns out really well), and some chance that the law will be worse after the decision (although my guess is that the justices took this to reverse the 10th Circuit, as the folks on the petitioner's side are savvy and wouldn't have filed unless they thought they had a good shot with the current court).

No the 4th uses the restrictive standard. Only the 3rd and arguably the 6th use the more liberal. I don't think DC has clearly weighed in.

Here's a horrible case where a DC court held that a girl who CLEARLY needed an IEP didn't get one because she was making minimal "progress." http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020160122C82/E.L.%20Haynes%20Public%20Charter%20School%20v.%20Frost

The legal issue is different because it involves the definition of disabled rather than the standard for the special education provided, but the two are related. (You're disabled if you can't achieve a certain educational standard without special ed.)

Side note: FU El Haynes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the court will decide what is considered "appropriate"?

At issue is whether the standard for FAPE should be whether a school district offers provides "some educational benefit" or "meaningful educational benefit" to a student with disabilities.

Different states and courts have used each standard and the Supreme Court has been asked to clarify. The US Justice Department has weighed in saying that it believes the standard should be "meaningful educational benefit."

Based on what I've read online, the Fourth Circuit (which covers MD and VA) already uses the more generous standard, while the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit uses the more restrictive standard. That means families in VA and MD probably have nothing to gain from this case (unless the dicta in the case turns out really well), and some chance that the law will be worse after the decision (although my guess is that the justices took this to reverse the 10th Circuit, as the folks on the petitioner's side are savvy and wouldn't have filed unless they thought they had a good shot with the current court).

Anonymous wrote:So the court will decide what is considered "appropriate"?

Sort of. The Court will (likely) decide what level of educational benefit must be provided the the IEP. Most courts have said that some more than nominal/de minimis benefit is all that is required. One or two others require a more substantial benefit. The Court will probably resolve the split on this issue.

But no matter what the Court does, it will still be a very fact specific question about what benefits are provided by a particular kid with a particular IEP. Don't get me wrong, this is very important and the decision could have a big impact on the ability to get services, but there will still be lots parents have to fight over no matter what the decision is.

Anonymous wrote:So the court will decide what is considered "appropriate"?

At issue is whether the standard for FAPE should be whether a school district offers provides "some educational benefit" or "meaningful educational benefit" to a student with disabilities.

Different states and courts have used each standard and the Supreme Court has been asked to clarify. The US Justice Department has weighed in saying that it believes the standard should be "meaningful educational benefit."

So the court will decide what is considered "appropriate"?

Anonymous wrote:I think the posture of this case (a parent trying to get reimbursed for private placement) is unfortunate. The court is more likely to reject an interpretation that is perceived to impose a requirement to make a private placements because that will be seen as more expensive, and more subject to parental wrongdoing (eg parents just want the private school.) I wish the posture had to do with a student request a specific program INSIDE a school.

Very interesting point. This shouldn't be relevant as the standard would apply in either scenario, but it is possible that concerns about private placements (which at times are warranted) could impact the decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing! This is a huge deal. The idea that schools only need to provide "some educational benefit" is offensive. It's like saying that NT kids only have to be somewhat able to read and do math. If that's not ok for NT kids, why is it ok for SN kids?

Apparently, you're not in tune with the state of our schools. Unfortunately, it's business as usual, and sometimes even the basics are met.

This was about the state of DCPS bathrooms less than a decade ago.:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/city-desk/blog/13052188/dc-schools-have-crappy-bathrooms

There are places around the country where this is par for the course. Crumbling infrastructure, over-crowded classrooms...

Too many schools are not yet ADA complaint and the dang law is 25 years old already. Not shocking that they haven't gotten the IDEA right yet either.

IDEA is even older - 41 years old

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing! This is a huge deal. The idea that schools only need to provide "some educational benefit" is offensive. It's like saying that NT kids only have to be somewhat able to read and do math. If that's not ok for NT kids, why is it ok for SN kids?

Apparently, you're not in tune with the state of our schools. Unfortunately, it's business as usual, and sometimes even the basics are met.

This was about the state of DCPS bathrooms less than a decade ago.:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/city-desk/blog/13052188/dc-schools-have-crappy-bathrooms

There are places around the country where this is par for the course. Crumbling infrastructure, over-crowded classrooms...

Too many schools are not yet ADA complaint and the dang law is 25 years old already. Not shocking that they haven't gotten the IDEA right yet either.

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing! This is a huge deal. The idea that schools only need to provide "some educational benefit" is offensive. It's like saying that NT kids only have to be somewhat able to read and do math. If that's not ok for NT kids, why is it ok for SN kids?

Apparently, you're not in tune with the state of our schools. Unfortunately, it's business as usual, and sometimes even the basics are met.

This was about the state of DCPS bathrooms less than a decade ago.:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/city-desk/blog/13052188/dc-schools-have-crappy-bathrooms

There are places around the country where this is par for the course. Crumbling infrastructure, over-crowded classrooms...

I think the posture of this case (a parent trying to get reimbursed for private placement) is unfortunate. The court is more likely to reject an interpretation that is perceived to impose a requirement to make a private placements because that will be seen as more expensive, and more subject to parental wrongdoing (eg parents just want the private school.) I wish the posture had to do with a student request a specific program INSIDE a school.

Bet it will end up another 4-4 tie.

Thanks for posting. I have had surreal conversations at IEP meetings regarding "appropriate".

Thank you for sharing! This is a huge deal. The idea that schools only need to provide "some educational benefit" is offensive. It's like saying that NT kids only have to be somewhat able to read and do math. If that's not ok for NT kids, why is it ok for SN kids?

Anonymous wrote:Court agreed to hear Endrew v. Douglas County. Issue is what level of educational benefits schools must provide under IEPs. Could be very important decision, whether good or bad.

Thanks for posting this. I was unaware of this case. Seems that the goal is to get the court to define what "appropriate" (as part of FAPE) actually means

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-29/disabled-students-rights-draw-u-s-supreme-court-scrutiny
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/29/supreme-court-special-education-disabilities/91262338/

Court agreed to hear Endrew v. Douglas County. Issue is what level of educational benefits schools must provide under IEPs. Could be very important decision, whether good or bad.