Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Educational Justice

124 bytes added, 13:33, 26 June 2017
Students with Disabilities
==Students with Disabilities==
Every child with a disability has a right to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Defining FAPE, the Supreme Court has defined FAPE to mean ruled that special education and related services that “(A) have must meet certain criteria. First, they must “have been provided at public expenses, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (B) ". They must also "meet the standards of the State educational agency; (C) ". Further, these services must "include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the State involved". Finally, and (D) it is required that these services "are provided in conformity with the individualized education plan program (IEP). " Appropriate IEPs are “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.”[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/458/176]
In March 2017, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District was decided by the Supreme Court. In an 8-0 finding, the Court determined that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that a child’s individualized education plan (IEP) “must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances.” Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the opinion, made it clear that “for children fully integrated in the regular classroom, this would typically require an IEP ‘reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade.’” He also said that that “the goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives.” The Court rejected the “merely more than the bare minimum" (or de minimis) test applied by the Tenth Circuit. Instead, they ruled that schools are required to show that an “IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of his circumstances.” [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf]

Navigation menu