Dear Colleagues,
The
origins of this potentially lank mark case stretch back to 2010 when
the parents of a child with autism in Douglas County of USA had to
withdraw their child from "Summit View Elementary" - a public
school after the child (now 17) began to exhibit severe behavioral
issues, including banging his head, dropping to the floor, disrobing and
running away from school. The parents having been convinced the school
wasn’t doing enough to help their son with autism progress academically,
pulled the child out of Summit View and enrolled him in Firefly Autism,
a Denver school that specializes in working with autistic children.
The
parents have argued in the petition they submitted to the U.S. Supreme
Court late last year that the intent of the IDEA (Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act) was to provide a meaningful education to
disabled students, not simply a “just-above-trivial” benefit. They noted
that federal judges from several circuits across the country have
issued conflicting rulings over the years on what is the "appropriate
standard" to be used to assess the proper level of educational benefit a
disabled student should get. The petition of the parents argues that
this case presents an ideal vehicle for this Court to resolve the
circuit split and provide lower courts with guidance in applying the
IDEA.
It
is pertinent to note that the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t spoken on the
issue since the 1982 Board of Education Versus Rowley ruling, when it
affirmed that IDEA guaranteed disabled students access to the public
school classroom but didn’t address the quality of that education.
Even
in India, we have been facing this issue of what is 'appropriate
education' for children with disabilities, particularly those with
intellectual and developmental disabilities. While the government
schools in India are woefully ill-equipped in absence of trained
educators, lack of teaching learning material in the schools given the
large number of students. The situation is equally grim in the private
schools as well who charge a considerable amount in the name of tuition
fee and other counts, however, have made the education of disabled
children an affair to be managed by Shadow Teachers (paid by parents).
In the name of inclusion, children do remain in the school but there is
hardly an effort to include them in the classroom or the learning
outcomes. Children with disabilities are also not included in play or
extra-curricular activities. This is surely not inclusion. This is a
clear violation of the spirit of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 and
in particular Section 30 of the Act.
Entire
world will be watching this case with great curiosity as to what
Supreme Court of USA decides. But one thing is sure, Supreme Court had
made up its mind to speak its mind on the issue and likely to grant
Certiorari to the parents. This case is truly about equal opportunity
for the special needs children that the law requires. And this is likely
to help realize inclusive education as enshrined in the IDEA.
Brief about IDEA
The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a four-part (A-D)
piece of American legislation that ensures students with a disability
are provided with Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that is
tailored to their individual needs. IDEA was previously known as the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) from 1975 to 1990. In
1990, the United States Congress reauthorized EHA and changed the title
to IDEA (Public Law No. 94-142). Overall, the goal of IDEA is to provide
children with disabilities the same opportunity for education as those
students who do not have a disability.
IDEA
is composed of four parts, the main two being part A and part B.[1]
Part A covers the general provisions of the law, Part B covers
assistance for education of all children with disabilities, Part C
covers infants and toddlers with disabilities which includes children
from birth to age three, and Part D is the national support programs
administered at the federal level. Each part of the law has remained
largely the same since the original enactment in 1975.
In
practice, IDEA is composed of six main elements that illuminate its
main points. These six elements are: Individualized Education Program
(IEP), Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), Least Restrictive
Environment (LRE), Appropriate Evaluation, Parent and Teacher
Participation, and Procedural Safeguards. To go along with those six
main elements there are also a few other important components that tie
into IDEA: Confidentiality of Information, Transition Services, and
Discipline. Throughout the years of IDEA being reauthorized these
components have become key concepts when learning about IDEA.
Here is the coverage in Denver on the issue
U.S. Supreme Court will hear Douglas County student with disabilities case
Origins of potentially landmark case stretch back to 2010
The
U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday that it will hear a potentially
groundbreaking case brought by a Douglas County couple who claim that
their autistic son was not provided an adequate education in the public
school system as required by federal law.
The
high court’s ruling on the case, which likely wouldn’t come down until
next year, could have substantial implications for students with
disabilities across the country in terms of the standard school
districts will be required to meet when providing instruction and
services. At issue is whether schools must provide an education equal to
other students.
The
family, whose last name is not used in court documents, told The Denver
Post on Thursday that they were “shell-shocked and giddy” about the
decision by the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to their case, which
has dragged on for half a dozen years.
“It’s
about equal opportunity for special-needs kids that the law requires,”
said Joe F., father of Endrew F., whose name anchors the Endrew F. v.
Douglas County School District case file. “If we can change any
families’ lives, that’s our goal.”
The district released a statement on the high court’s decision late Thursday.
“It
would be inappropriate to discuss the specifics of the case while it is
still being litigated, but the Court’s decision today is not a decision
on the merits, and we look forward to addressing the issues before the
Court,” district spokeswoman Paula Hans said.
The
roots of the case go back to 2010, when the Highlands Ranch couple
pulled Endrew, now 17, out of Summit View Elementary after he began to
exhibit severe behavioral issues, including banging his head, dropping
to the floor, disrobing and running away from school. Convinced the
school wasn’t doing enough to help their son progress academically, the
couple pulled him out of Summit View and enrolled him in Firefly Autism,
a Denver school that specializes in working with autistic children.
“If
he was able to show up to school and say ‘good morning,’ that was good
enough for them,” Joe F. said of the Douglas County School District.
“They weren’t moving his education forward.”
The family has asked that their last name not be used.
The
parents, who said their son has made progress in his learning since
attending Firefly, asked the district to reimburse them for the tuition
they paid for Endrew’s private schooling. They claimed that the Douglas
County School District did not do enough to provide their son with a
“free appropriate public education” as required by the 1975 Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
But
an administrative law judge, a federal judge and the 10th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals backed the district, claiming in separate rulings that
the federal statute only requires that schools provide students with
“some educational benefit,” a standard they determined Douglas County
had met with Endrew.
The
family argued in the petition they submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court
late last year that the intent of the IDEA was to provide a meaningful
education to disabled students, not simply a “just-above-trivial”
benefit. They noted that federal judges from several circuits across the
country have issued conflicting rulings over the years on what is the
appropriate standard to be used to assess the proper level of
educational benefit a disabled student should get.
“This
case presents an ideal vehicle for this Court to resolve the circuit
split and provide lower courts with guidance in applying the IDEA,”
their petition argued.
The
U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t spoken on the issue since the 1982 Board of
Education v. Rowley ruling, when it affirmed that IDEA guaranteed
disabled students access to the public school classroom but didn’t
address the quality of that education.
The
family received a boost last month when the Office of the Solicitor
General filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take up the
case. It said that the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had set the
bar — a standard of “merely … more than de minimis” educational benefit —
too low.
“No
parent or educator in America would say that a child has received an
‘appropriate’ or a ‘specially suitable’ or ‘proper’ education ‘in the
circumstances’ when all the child has received are benefits that are
barely more than trivial,” the solicitor general’s office wrote.
But
Kathleen Sullivan, chief counsel for the Colorado Association of School
Boards, said it would be better for Congress to clarify its statutes
than for the court to impose an order. A uniform standard handed down by
the Supreme Court would prove “disruptive” to what is today an
individually tailored analysis and decision between educators, parents
and students, she said.
“The
disruption is in shoving aside more than 30 years of case law that we
have in helping us understand what the IDEA means for students,”
Sullivan said. “I think we would see a wave of litigation to define and
apply that new standard.”
The
district, in a brief it filed earlier this month urging the Supreme
Court not to take up the case, argued that in passing the IDEA, Congress
guaranteed access to public education for students with disabilities
but did not specify what the level of that education should be.
“Thus,
for over 30 years, this Court has held that if a State provides a
program ‘reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive
educational benefits,’ then it ‘has complied with the obligations
imposed by Congress and the courts can require no more,’ ” the brief
argued.
But
Jack Robinson, an attorney for Endrew F.’s family, said one of the
IDEA’s stated goals is readying a student with disabilities for the
workforce or independent living, something that can’t be achieved with a
minimal education offering.
“There
has to be a more heightened and robust standard than a little more than
nothing,” Robinson said. “This case has the potential of recognizing
that children with disabilities have a right to a substantive
education.”
