Advocates for children with disabilities are cheering a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court as a clear win that establishes more-ambitious academic standards for special education students.
Representatives for some educational groups and districts, on the other hand, have a more measured response. They say that the in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District sets forth a standard for the level of benefit required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that most school districts were exceeding already.
Both sides can find support for their views in the text of the unanimous decision, which was written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. for the eight-member court.
The high court rejected language in a lower court ruling that special education must provide 鈥渕erely more than de minimis鈥濃�攐r trivial鈥攂enefit to students.
鈥淲hen all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing 鈥榤erely more than de minimis鈥� progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all,鈥� Roberts said.
At the same time, the decision states that the individualized education programs that are crafted for students with disabilities must be 鈥渞easonable,鈥� not a court鈥檚 vision of 鈥渋deal.鈥� And, the high court rejected an argument that children with disabilities must be provided an education 鈥渟ubstantially equal to the opportunities afforded children without disabilities.鈥� That particular standard had been rejected in a 1982 special education case as unworkable, and the court said it was not going to deviate from that earlier analysis.
Creates a 鈥榃orkable Standard鈥� for IDEA
Joe and Jennifer F., the parents of the student with autism who is at the center of this case, released a statement saying that, from the start, they felt it was wrong that the school district was only required to offer an education 鈥渨hich amounts to barely more than nothing.鈥�
鈥淲e鈥檙e very hopeful that this clarified standard that the court has articulated is workable for both parents and schools moving forward. Families should not have to fight this hard to get their kids what they deserve and are entitled to by federal law,鈥� said the parents, who have declined to be fully identified to protect their family鈥檚 privacy.
An attorney for the 67,000-student Douglas district, located between Denver and Colorado Springs, said the district is confident that it already meets the standard outlined by the court in this case.
鈥淣otably, the court did not hold that the Douglas County school district failed to meet the new standard, or say that DCSD can鈥檛 proceed to prove that it met that standard in the Endrew F. matter,鈥� said William Trachman, an attorney for the district. 鈥淚ndeed, in this case, the Douglas County school district offered an appropriate individualized education plan, and we look forward to proving to the lower courts that the IEP meets the new, higher standard.鈥�
The 鈥渄e minimis鈥� language that the high court struck down had been set forth by the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in a 2008 opinion written by Judge Neil M. Gorsuch. Gorsuch is President Donald Trump鈥檚 nominee for the Supreme Court and he faced questions about the decision during his confirmation hearing, which were going on at the same time that the high court released its decision.
In setting aside the 鈥渕ore than de minimis鈥� standard, Chief Justice Roberts said that 鈥渇or children with disabilities, receiving instruction that aims so low would be tantamount to 鈥榮itting idly ... awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out,鈥� quoting from a key 1982 Supreme Court precedent on special education, Board of Education of the . The Rowley case was the first case to reach the Supreme Court that centered on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act .
鈥淭he IDEA demands more,鈥� the chief justice said. 鈥淚t requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child鈥檚 circumstances.鈥�
Gauging Meaningful Progress for 69传媒 With Disabilities
Endrew, called Drew in court papers, is now 17. The case began, however, when he was still in elementary school. He started to exhibit serious behavior problems and by the end of 4th grade, his behavior had deteriorated to the point where he had made minimal progress on his educational goals.
His parents argued that the individualized education program that the district developed for 5th grade was just offering more of the same. They withdrew him from public school, enrolled him in a Denver private school called Firefly Autism House, and argued that the district should be responsible for his tuition.
The parents lost their case before an administrative law judge, a federal district judge, and the U.S. Court of Appeals before their appeal to the Supreme Court. In its ruling, the appeals court ruled 鈥渋t is not the district鈥檚 burden to pay for his placement there when Drew was making some progress under its tutelage. That is all that is required.鈥�
The Council for Parent Attorneys and Advocates was one of the organizations casting the decision as groundbreaking.
鈥淲e expect this unanimous decision ... to be transformative in the lives of the students and families for whom the law is intended to benefit,鈥� it says in a statement.
Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate education committee, said the ruling 鈥渟ends a critically needed message: Every child deserves the opportunity to reach their full potential and receive a high-quality public education. With this ruling, the court has rightly reaffirmed Congress鈥� intent in [the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act] to hold schools accountable for providing students with disabilities meaningful educational benefit from the instruction and services they receive.鈥�
No 鈥楻adical Alteration鈥� of Case Law
Kathleen Sullivan, the chief counsel for the Colorado Association of School Boards, said the ruling does mark a rejection of the 鈥渄e minimis鈥� standard, but it also rejected a standard offered by the parents. Instead, it set forth a path that 鈥渋s not a radical alteration of the Rowley standard and will not disrupt the significant body of case law that has developed,鈥� she says in a statement.
In practice, educators and teachers keep the idea of meaningful progress in mind during IEP meetings, she said.
The Council of the Great City 69传媒, which represents urban districts, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the school district in this case. John W. Borkowski, who led the legal team that drafted the brief, said in an interview that the standard set forth in this case was 鈥渨orkable.鈥�
鈥淭he court was quite careful, I think, to repeat its caution that courts shouldn鈥檛 second-guess the professional judgment of educators. I think that sort of deference is important,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 think it鈥檚 important the court suggested that there鈥檚 not any guaranteed outcome for any student.鈥�
Educators who are looking for a bright-line standard to tell them what to do will not find that in this ruling, and that鈥檚 intentional, the decision states. 鈥淭he adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created,鈥� Roberts wrote in the opinion.
Most school districts and teachers are already trying to do the right thing for students, said Ed Bosso, the superintendent and executive director of educational programs at the Perkins School for the Blind in Watertown, Mass.
But 鈥渁 unanimous decision by the Supreme Court that is perceived as taking the bar of IDEA and raising it a little bit is a win,鈥� he said.
