If you haven’t heard, there’s a potential game-changer afoot for families like mine, who are raising differently-abled kids and therefore must stay vigilant regarding their education. It’s the case of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, which is currently being deliberated before the U.S. Supreme Court.
This case is about Drew, one of our own from Colorado, who has autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). By fourth grade, Drew’s medical condition had manifested into head-banging, peeing on the floor and getting naked — all while at school; he’s a runner who left school and ran out into the street. I am guessing Drew is bright, kind and curious, and he was fed up with educators who didn’t have the training or the resources to reach him and to teach him, which is why he was expressing himself best he could.
I may as well be hearing my own life story. Like Drew, my daughter Sarah was removed by her school from her fourth-grade general education classroom. Nobody told us, her parents, for two months. Like Drew, Sarah’s increasingly risky behaviors at school coincided with minimal or no progress on Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals. And just like Drew’s parents, Tim and I pulled our child from public school and put her into an autism program where she finally met her basic preschool goals and continued to make significant, meaningful progress.
The heart of the Supreme Court case seems to be about finding the right words for clear standards. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), is supposed to ensure that schools provide access to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) and related services that fit our kids’ unique needs. But lower courts that have sided with the school districts argue that “some” educational benefit is enough for our kids. Schools only need to meet a de minimus or bare minimum standard, they claim. For Sarah, this would have meant slipping on her shoes was “good enough” progress in six years, if you add in two years of preschool.
A lesser number of lower courts have sided with families and their special education attorneys to say no, the law’s intent is for schools to provide an education with results that are “meaningful” or significant.
I find this whole debate ridiculous given that in 2017, there is still any argument that our children deserve less or barely more than zero results in their educational career. School district lawyers complain of financial costs, but isn’t it much more expensive for society not to teach them and then pay for institutional care into their old age? These proponents of trifling, trivial standards cite concern that a standard with teeth will lead to expensive lawsuits. The fact this case is now before the high court proves that by not giving the lower courts a kick to make ethical choices for our most vulnerable citizens, lawsuits will continue until courts get it right, both legally and morally.
For too long, society has shamefully accepted harmful, dismissive and derogatory limits on our kids’ abilities, even resisting granting them equal access into mainstream classrooms. But no one has a crystal ball to determine how far the human spirit and intellect can overcome its challenges, and clear legal standards with bite will force schools to keep up with scientifically proven methods, such as Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) that work.
Sarah is now in a public middle school with a wonderful special education teacher, excellent support staff and a supportive principal. These dedicated educators relish in Sarah’s quirks, such as quoting from Dora the Explorer. But we are playing catch-up from years of neglect. Without proper guidance from the high court, such a luxury of confidence in our school for families like ours remains an ephemeral condition, which can evaporate as quickly as staff turnover.
While the justices wrangle with semantics over educational benefits and standards, I suggest they conjure up guiding words of wisdom such as “protect” because their decision will speak for kids who cannot speak for themselves; and “trust,” which is the key to opening lines of honest communication with educators about what our kids need for their independence and growth (it’s also the key to avoiding future lawsuits). And “value” because our kids and their different ways of being are immensely and intrinsically valuable in a world that increasingly lacks humility, compassion and boundless love.
To find out more about Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District please visit these links below, provided with great thanks to Betty Lehman:
The Atlantic article, Jan. 24, 2017
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/01/is-the-bar-too-low-for-special-education/514241/
DeVos, SCOTUS, and the Future of Special Education – The …
www.theatlantic.com
Is the Bar Too Low for Special Education? The Supreme Court is poised to decide the quality of instruction public schools must provide students with disabilities—a …
#Endrewf #SCOTUS case could change how schools serve students with unique
abilities @UntapPotential #SpEd
http://bit.ly/2jB0Xgj
How a Colorado court case could change how public schools everywhere serve students with special needs
bit.ly
The case originated with a complaint by the family of a Douglas County child with autism and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
#SCOTUS hearing on the #EndrewF case could bring change for students with
#UniqueAbilities @UntapPotential
http://dpo.st/2jotJS1
U.S. Supreme Court hears case on special-needs students that started in Colorado
dpo.st
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday debated a question that ultimately could impact millions of U.S. students: what level of support are public schools required to give to pupils with special needs…
@UntapPotential Advisor @SprlawSpecialEd delivers a “blizzard of words” on
behalf of #EndrewF
http://nyti.ms/2jcvWmr
Transcript from @SCOTUS hearing on #EndrewF v. Douglas County School
District @UntapPotential
http://bit.ly/2jEEQtM
#EndrewF #SCOTUS arguments analysis @UntapPotential
http://bit.ly/2j8qukh
Argument analysis: Justices grapple with proper standard for measuring educational benefits for children with disabilities – SCOTUSblog
bit.ly
At today’s oral argument in the case of a Colorado student with autism, one thing seemed relatively clear: The justices were dissatisfied with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s ruling that school districts can satisfy federal education law as long as they offer a student with a disabi
#SCOTUS considers how schools support students with #UniqueAbilities
@UntapPotential #EndrewF
http://n.pr/2joKixh
7 Things to Know About the #SCOTUS #EndrewF case @UntapPotential @The74
http://bit.ly/2idE4yG
“What’s the point of the law, if it doesn’t help the child?” #EndrewF
#SCOTUS @washingtonpost @UntapPotential
http://wapo.st/2ildMKY
High court may put more bite into law for students with #UniqueAbilities
#EndrewF #SCOTUS @UntapPotential
http://bit.ly/2iliJ6h
@UntapPotential advisor @SprlawSpecialEd on #EndrewF #SCOTUS case
http://bit.ly/2ih6Y5D
#SCOTUS May Boost #FAPE Mandate from #EndrewF case @UntapPotential
http://bit.ly/2iKGNjY
#SCOTUS appears ready to bolster support for students with #UniqueAbilities
@UntapPotential #EndrewF
http://on.wsj.com/2ipCgFZ
#SCOTUS considers higher #SpEd standard #EndrewF @UntapPotential
http://bit.ly/2iMEoW9
#SCOTUS considers #EndrewF case for students with #UniqueAbilities
@UntapPotential
http://bit.ly/2ipBKbd
#SCOTUS considers how school districts’ obligation to educate students with
#UniqueAbilities #EndrewF @UntapPotential
http://bloom.bg/2jmSuhI
Email: flyingburros@gmail.com
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
