New Mission

New Mission


My idea is to explore how other countries around the world are dealing with education and special education issues. I’d like to see different successful schools, wherever they may be, up close. I’d like to sit down with directors and administrators. I’d like to speak with government officials who keep a pulse on the education affairs of their communities. I want to learn more about education around the globe through speaking with locals, seeing the schools, and shaking hands with the people responsible for implementing the systems. If you know of any outstanding (public or private) special needs schools in other parts of the world, I’d love to hear about them. If you know any education experts from around the world, I’d love to be introduced to them. Please do not hesitate to share your thoughts or ideas. Read more about my mission.

Search This Blog

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

UPDATE: Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District

In October, I posted about the Endrew F. case, which is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court concerning what level of educational benefit is required for a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  Since then there have been some important developments.

The federal government filed a brief in support of the child and his family, arguing that school districts should offer a program aimed at significant educational progress in light of the child's circumstances.  A number of groups submitted amicus briefs.  For instance, a group of 118 former and current members of Congress filed an amicus brief arguing that the IDEA intended to provide meaningful and material educational benefits so that students with disabilities could reach their potential and live independently.

Oral arguments happened last week on Wednesday, January 11.  The transcript of the oral arguments follows in the link below, as well as an article that provides a thorough analysis:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2016/15-827_gfbh.pdf

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/argument-analysis-justices-grapple-proper-standard-measuring-educational-benefits-children-disabilities/

From what I have gathered so far, the justices seem to be of the mind that students with disabilities are entitled to greater educational benefit than the bare minimum.  However, they seem to be grappling with how to articulate a clear standard capable of implementation.

Some justices have expressed concerns about what additional costs this would impose on school districts; whether it is appropriate for the justices, who lack expertise in education, to be the ones creating this standard; how to deal with students who, because of their disabilities, are unable to follow the general education curriculum at grade level; and whether articulating a new standard would create a flood of litigation and lead to the Supreme Court becoming involved in other education-related decisions in the future.

SCOTUS is expected to issue a decision by the end of June 2017.  Stay tuned.  

A.M. v. New York City Department of Education

I am excited to write about an important case that was just decided by the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals -- A.M. v. New York City Department of Education (DOE).

This case involved a child with autism for whom there seemed to be a consensus that 1:1 ABA services were necessary based on private evaluative materials.  The school district had not conducted its own evaluations and did not have any materials suggesting that some other methodology should be used for this student.  The school district's IEP team, however, while it may have relied on the parent's private evaluations and professionals to better understand the child's needs, did not follow their recommendations.  This scenario may sound familiar to parents who have gone through the special education process expecting their team to follow the recommendations from the private professionals they have consulted.

One question presented in this case is, To what extent does an IEP team have to follow the recommendations of private evaluators and professionals with respect to the program and services that a child requires?  A related and broader question is, To what extent is a school district obligated to consider "methodology" in making recommendations for a child with special needs?  For example, in this case, where the child at issue was a child with autism for whom 1:1 ABA services were recommended, to what extent is a school district required to recommend the specific methodology of Applied Behavior Analysis, as opposed to a more eclectic instructional approach or a different one entirely?

A three-judge panel consisting of Judges Kearse, Wesley, and Droney agreed with the parent's argument that the IEP team's 6:1:1 classroom recommendation and its failure to guarantee any 1:1 ABA therapy in the IEP "went against the consensus of the evaluative materials present at the CSE meeting," which demonstrated that the child required ABA and a significant amount of 1:1 instruction.  The Court articulated the following principle:
[W]hen the reports and evaluative materials present at the CSE meeting yield a clear consensus, an IEP formulated for the child that fails to provide services consistent with that consensus is not "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits," and the state's determination to the contrary is thus entitled to no deference because it is unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence. . . .  This remains true whether the issue relates to the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction in a child's IEP. 
This is great language and parents should rely on this principle when advocating for specific programs and methodologies that have been recommended by private professionals.

Lots of good nuggets in this decision.  I want to highlight one more.

Parents familiar with the special education process who have had their children enrolled in private placements may have been told by their IEP team, "Well, your child is progressing so nicely at his/her private placement, it's time to transition him/her to a less restrictive setting."  The A.M. decision pointed out the flaws in this reasoning.  The Court stated that the logical inference that a child has made gains while attending a private placement "would suggest that the more restrictive academic setting in which he was learning adequately addressed his needs and should thus be continued; not that the program should be discontinued and that he should be transitioned to a less restrictive learning environment. . . ."

A great decision for parents of children with special needs.