Search

The primary message of the Supreme Court's ruling in "Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District" (hereinafter "Endrew F.," 2017) was that school districts are obligated to "offer an IEP [individualized education program] that is reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances" ("Endrew F.," 2017, p. 1001). It is through the present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP), annual goals, services, and methods to monitor student progress that special educators can ensure that their students' IEPs are designed to enable them to make academic and functional progress. The purpose of this article is to assist IEP teams to (a) connect students' areas of need as defined in the PLAAFP statements to the rest of the IEP, (b) write legally defensible IEP goals that are ambitious and meaningful, (c) develop special education and related services based on peer-reviewed research (PRR), and (d) monitor a student's progress toward their goals. Each of these components working together is essential to developing IEPs that enable a student to make progress appropriate in light of their circumstances.

The Supreme Court decision in "Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District" (2017) established a higher standard of what constitutes an appropriate education for students receiving special education. In contrast to the previous standard provided in the "Board of Education v. Rowley" (1982) decision, which established that "some benefit" (even minimal or trivial benefit) was acceptable, the "Endrew F." decision reflected a higher standard for the delivery of special education. Specifically, special education should result in measurable progress toward individualized education program goals. This article explores what it means for special education teacher educators to prepare teacher candidates to meet this higher standard. In particular, how a focus on instruction (i.e., the delivery of specially designed instruction) rather than a focus on access to the general curriculum is necessary in order for meaningful, measurable change to occur in the outcomes of students with high-incidence disabilities will be explored.

Chris resides with his parents and attends school in an unnamed district ("the District"). During the second half of second grade, Chris started to have problems with reading and written expression. The District evaluated Chris and did not find problems significant enough to identify him as having a learning disability. At about the same time his parents obtained an independent educational evaluation (IEE) that diagnosed a reading disorder and a disorder of written expression. Though the District's initial evaluation had not found Chris eligible for special education and related services, it used the IEE to identify him as a student with a learning disability. Third grade went well, with Chris making appropriate progress. During fourth grade Chris received very little assistance from the special education teacher and received all As. During the annual review of Chris's individualized education program (IEP) in April 2008, the District felt Chris no longer required special education, and sought to discontinue his special education services. To ensure that this was the correct decision, the District suggested reevaluating Chris. The parents objected, stating Chris had been evaluated enough over the previous year. The District filed for a due process hearing seeking to complete this reevaluation; at this point, the parents agreed to the evaluation and the District withdrew the request for a hearing. After completing the reevaluation, the District recommended Chris be dismissed from special education. The parents rejected the District's evaluation. The District filed for a due process hearing to seek a ruling as to whether Chris was still eligible for special education services. The parents filed for a hearing at about the same time seeking reimbursement for the IEE. This article offers an analysis of this case.

A critical requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education is that school personnel and parents collaborate in the development and implementation of students’ special education programs. Collaboration has been a crucial requirement of the IDEA since 1975. Collaboration is necessary in formulating student’s special education services and implementing programs that meet students’ needs. In this article, we examine the critical importance collaboration plays in special education law. To do so we examine (a) the history, evolution, and language of the IDEA; (b) rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts addressing issues in collaboration; and (c) regulations and policies from the U.S. Department of Education. To meet the mandates of the IDEA, school districts need to employ general education teachers, special education teachers, and building-level and district-level administrators with skills in collaborating to support the education of all students and to meet the requirements of the IDEA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I Alex was a rising seventh-grade student with a learning disability (LD) in reading and serious behavior problems. His IEP required that the special education teacher, who worked with Alex in reading, report Alex's progress to his parents every 6 weeks. To ensure that a student's IEP is crafted to enable the student to make academic and functional progress, the student's parents and school-based personnel who compose the IEP team should develop a special education program that is ambitious and challenging. The IEP Team, consisting of experts, teachers, parents, and the student, is the entity equipped to determine the needs of a special education student, and the IEP represents this determination. [Extracted from the article]

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]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue including the experiences of special education teachers in their school sites, the impact of varied special education skills to school leadership and the essential leadership skills in special education.