Search

The central obligation under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act is to provide each eligible student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court revised the prior substantive standard for determining FAPE that the court had developed in Board of Education v. Rowley (1982). The Endrew F. court modified the Rowley standard of requiring the individualized education program (IEP) to be reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit to requiring a student's IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the student to "make progress appropriate in light of the student's circumstances." The purpose of this article is to compare what the post– Endrew F. courts use with what the professional literature recommends as measures of appropriate progress. The results inform special education practitioners about the significant discrepancy between the courts' focus on the "must" of legal requirements and the "should" of professional recommendations. The discussion suggests ways that special education professionals can use their expertise to inform courts and legislatures to narrow this gap for the benefit of more effective progress for students with disabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Five days after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School District. This important decision involved a student who was being served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The student was blind and required a high level of support in all academic areas. The case addressed important issues regarding parental participation throughout the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process and the school district's obligation to implement the IEP. This column (a) examines this decision by providing the facts of the case, including the decisions at the due process hearing level, U.S. district court, and U.S. Court of Appeals; (b) explores the ruling by the court of appeals decision; and (c) discusses implications of this decision for special education administrators and teachers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On August 2, [8], the 10th Circuit Court vacated its prior ruling and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, which was the first court to rule on I Endrew F. i , to hold further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling. Interpretation of the Endrew F. ruling by the U.S. Department of Education On December 7, 2017, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the U.S. Department of Education issued a Q-and-A document on the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in I Endrew F. i ([17]). Although the post- I Endrew F. i rulings will be incredibly important in understanding the effects of the decision, to fully assess the effects of the ruling, we need to look at information beyond just the decisions of hearing officers and judges in FAPE cases. [Extracted from the article]

The article examines the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Forest Grove School District v. T.A. It highlights the issues that developed when parents of students with disabilities unilaterally put their children in residential settings or private schools because they believe a school district has not offered a free, appropriate public education (FAPE). It discusses the implications on the decision of the Supreme Court to parents, children and special educators served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

This article addresses important legal issues surrounding voluntary school integration plans and explores policy and practice implications of the Seattle and Louisville cases. School policy guidance for how school districts should create or change their voluntary integration policies is discussed. Further discussion reveals what some school districts around the nation are doing in light of the Seattle/Louisville decision. Additional discussion speaks of future policy possibilities for school districts and educational leaders to consider as a possible solution to creating voluntary school desegregation plans. Practical implications are addressed for middle and secondary school principals as school leaders who must deal with the outcomes produced by school district policies regarding integration plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The second special education case decided by the U. S. Supreme Court, Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, is discussed. The case provides some criteria for determining which related services are required under the EHA. These criteria are discussed in relation to recent and future special education cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]