Special Education – How Much Progress is Really Progress? The Supreme Court Finally Speaks

The Special Education--How Much Progress is Really Progress?  The Supreme Court Finally Speaks

Parents and advocates of children with disabilities have been waiting a long time to hear the words of Chief Justice John Roberts when he said:

When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing “merely more than de minimis” progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.

These were the words of a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in its Opinion handed down this morning in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. This is a huge win for children with disabilities!

How many times have you heard the phrase “some educational benefit?” For many parents that is what they hear schools say to justify their program when a child is magically advancing from grade to grade, in spite of the fact that he is not making progress on his IEP goals or is regressing behaviorally. Many schools will justify repeating IEP goals from year to year, while claiming the child is making educational benefit based on his “passing” grades and advancement. And school attorneys have argued that some is better than none. Well the U.S. Supreme Court is not buying it!

In fact, according to the Supreme Court, setting such a low bar for students is equal to sitting idly by and waiting for them to drop out. Endrew F. is a student with Autism who, like many students, repeated IEP goals year after year because he did not master them and regressed behaviorally, but passed from grade to grade. His parents withdrew him from public school, placed him in a private school, and eventually sought reimbursement from the school district. Unfortunately, the parents met road block after road block before hearing officers and lower courts. It seems they all concluded, as did the school, that under IDEA more than “de minimis” is enough. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that some is better than none and held that under IDEA, a student’s IEP must enable him to make progress appropriate in light of his circumstances. In other words, advancement from grade to grade may be an appropriate measure if a student is in the regular classroom accessing the regular curriculum. However, the Court recognized that students who do not access the regular curriculum must still have a program that gives them a chance to meet challenging objectives based on their unique needs. This is the point of IDEA – individualized education.

What does this mean? The U.S. Supreme Court has not provided a strict formula for how to measure a student’s progress. Rather, it has stated the obvious – that progress must be viewed in light of the student’s unique needs. It is not enough to advance from the 2nd grade to the 3rd when the IEP goals never change because the child has not mastered them. Schools must provide educational programs that meet the student’s unique needs and then measure progress in light of those needs. That is what the IEP is all about!

This is a huge win in the fight for a free and appropriate education for students with disabilities!

Our lives here at The Ramage Law Group are spent fighting daily for the rights of students with disabilities and it is such a refreshing moment to see advancements one case at a time.

You are your child’s voice and best teacher!

The Ramage Law Group has authoritative solutions for special needs children!

Exhaustion Can Be Exhausting

Exhaustion can be exhausting.  If you are a parent of a student with special needs, you have probably heard that you must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit against a school under laws such as the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.  Thanks to Wonder, the service dog, the U.S. Supreme Court has now answered when families must exhaust administrative remedies under IDEA before holding the school accountable under other laws.

The case involved a young girl with Cerebral Palsy who relied on a service dog for assistance in balance, mobility and daily tasks.  The girl’s family requested that Wonder be allowed to accompany her to school and did not request any changes to the IEP.  Rather, they requested that their daughter’s special needs be accommodated by allowing Wonder to assist her during the school day.  The school refused.    The parents argued that Wonder helped the student gain much needed independence, but the school opted for a 1:1 aide instead.  The parents, after moving, sued the school for discrimination.

The lower courts both held that family was required to exhaust administrative remedies under IDEA prior to pursuing a claim for discrimination, essentially placing a needless hurdle between the family and righting a wrong.  The U. S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court and did the right thing.  The Court reasoned that the family’s claim is distinct from a complaint about the student IEP or special education services.  Therefore, they were not required to exhaust administrative remedies such as filing a claim under IDEA.

This is an important case because it removes a barrier to the right of disabled students to seek relief when their true claim is one of discrimination and is separate from their claim about an IEP or special education services.  In other words, the parents and the student need not go through the hearing process under IDEA prior to pursuing their claim.  

This case is also important because it was a unanimous decision in favor of a disabled student, a welcome development in the current state of education law.   

Read more about Wonder here.

You are your child’s voice and best teacher! The Ramage Law Group has authoritative solutions for special needs children!

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

This week, The Houston Chronicle published an article that details one of the many concerns in the Texas public school system.  In the article, Denied: How Texas keeps tens of thousands of children out of special education story by Brian M. Rosenthal.  School districts have been refusing to evaluate and identify special needs students based on an inappropriate cap of 8.5% established by TEA.  Regardless of the excuses and TEA denying that students have wrongfully been swept under the rug, which is exactly what school districts defend themselves by saying, many districts interpret the TEA monitoring system as a cap on the number of eligible students who can receive services.  Some districts fear that exceeding the 8.5% cap will place the district under scrutiny and result in the district being placed on a Corrective Action Plan if their subpopulation for Special Education exceeds 8.5%.  Does it matter why districts refuse to identify and evaluate students?  No.  The fact is they have denied many students over the years the opportunity to be identified thus causing students with disabilities to fail as they do not receive services. 
 
Most parents do not know they need to formally request a special education evaluation; however, even the ones that do formally request evaluations are still being denied.  Bringing in outside testing, doctor’s evaluations, and showing years of ineffective accommodations and lack of progress still do not persuade the districts to evaluate students.  Parents expect that school personnel do what is in their child’s best interest.  Many parents look at the school as the experts when they do not know where else to turn.  It is both shocking and disgusting to find out that schools are simply taking a “don’t’ ask, don’t tell” approach to responding to the needs of disabled students.   


Some districts convince parents that they are unable to offer services.  These schools recommend private or homeschooling.  Other districts may suggest the parent obtain a private evaluation at the parent’s expense.  Some districts tell parents that there is no need to evaluate because the student won’t qualify anyway.  Some school professionals may say there is no educational need for an evaluation.  It seems these school professionals have the gift of clairvoyance.    However, question of whether there is an educational need for services only gets addressed after the evaluation.  How can anyone know whether there is an educational need for special education services if no evaluation is done?
   
Some teachers may focus only on academic performance, i.e., grades, but ignore the student’s non-academic needs related to his disability, such as the need for behavioral goals or social skills training.  Disabilities come in different forms, many of which lead to behavioral challenges, not just academic ones.  School districts have even tried to “appease” parents by wrongfully substituting a 504 plan for special education services under an IEP.  Don’t be fooled - 504 plans do not provide the same protection and level of services as an IEP.  504 plans do not require parent collaboration as in an IEP.   


Unfortunately, there appears to be an epidemic of school officials refusing to evaluate students so they will not have to identify them or educate them.  In other words, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell!  IDEA guarantees all students a right to a free and appropriate public education.  The Ramage Law Group will fight for the right of all students with disabilities to be identified and served.  


The blame game between districts and TEA is causing students to suffer the consequences of bureaucrats who arbitrarily make decisions based on meaningless data and monetary considerations rather than doing what the law requires – meet the individual and unique needs of each and every disabled student.   Instead of evaluating the student, districts are simply sweeping the concern under the rug or putting up so many road blocks that it becomes impossible for parents and even teachers to advocate for the student.   Shedding light on the situation is a step in the right direction for Texas students.  Let us hope that the blaming will stop and Texas will put children first.  Until then,  

You are your child’s voice and best teacher!

The Ramage Law Group has authoritative solutions for special needs children!