Editing Educational Justice

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 48: Line 48:
  
 
==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). Defining FAPE, the Supreme Court has ruled that special education and related services must meet certain benchmarks. First, they must “have been provided at public expenses, under public supervision and direction, and without charge". They must also "meet the standards of the State educational agency" and "include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the State involved". Finally, these services must be "provided in conformity with the individualized education program (IEP)." Appropriate IEPs are “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” [https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/458/176]
+
Every child with a disability has a right to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Defining FAPE, the Supreme Court has ruled that special education and related services must meet certain criteria. First, they must “have been provided at public expenses, under public supervision and direction, and without charge". They must also "meet the standards of the State educational agency". Further, these services must "include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the State involved". Finally, it is required that these services "are provided in conformity with the individualized education 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, the Supreme Court ruled 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 wrote the 8-0 opinion. The Court 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.’” Roberts continued, “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]
+
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]
  
 
===Trump/GOP Agenda===
 
===Trump/GOP Agenda===
*[[Trump_Administration#Secretary_of_Education_Betsy_DeVos|Education Secretary Betsy DeVos]] stated in her confirmation hearing that enforcement of the Individuals with [[Disability Rights|Disabilities Education Act]] should be left to the states. She seemed unaware that it is a federal law.[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/18/six-astonishing-things-betsy-devos-said-and-refused-to-say-at-her-confirmation-hearing/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.0282de4a851f]   
+
*[[Trump_Administration#Secretary_of_Education_Betsy_DeVos|Education Secretary Betsy DeVos]] stated in her confirmation hearing that enforcement of the Individuals with [[Disability Rights|Disabilities Education Act]] should be left to the states, seemingly unaware that this is a federal law.[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/18/six-astonishing-things-betsy-devos-said-and-refused-to-say-at-her-confirmation-hearing/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.0282de4a851f]   
  
 
===Budget Deal===
 
===Budget Deal===

Please note that all contributions to Resistance Manual may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Resistance Manual:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)