. . . [consisting] of access to specialized instruction and related services which are individually designed to provide educational benefit to the [child with a disability].” In a unanimous 2017 decision, the United States Supreme Court went beyond the Court in Rowley to interpret the scope of FAPE requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and overturned the Tenth Circuit’s decision regarding a child with autism being entitled only to an educational program that was calculated to provide “merely more than de minimis ” educational benefit. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) . Endrew F. did not overturn Rowley ; rather, the decision provided clarification in the form of a standard for determining whether a child’s IEP provides FAPE under the IDEA – a single test which the Rowley Court declined to establish 35 years earlier. Under Endrew F ., the Court held: • “To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” • The “merely more than de minimis ” standard was rejected. • In determining the scope of FAPE, the Court reinforced the requirement that “every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives” and that the “instruction offered must be “specially designed” to meet a child’s “ unique needs.” The IDEA requires neither that a LEA provide the best education to a child with a disability, nor that it provide an education that maximizes the child’s potential ( Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 1982 ; Gregory K. v. Longview School District, 9th Cir. 1987 ). An IEP should confer a meaningful educational benefit ( T.R. ex rel. N.R. v. Kingwood Twp. Bd. of Educ., 3rd Cir. 2000 ). • LEAs are required to consider more than just the regression and recoupment analysis and consider other factors relevant in determining a child’s need for special education services during ESY. No single criterion can be used as a sole qualifying factor (Johnson v. Independent School District No. 4, 1990). One factor to be considered is the critical stage of developing a skill which has great potential for increasing self-sufficiency. For such skill, if not completely acquired and mastered, it is likely that the current level of acquisition will be lost due to the interruption of summer vacation (Reusch v. Fountain, 1994). There is a reference in Fullerton USD vs. Parent (OAH Case # 2011080355) that ESY services are recommended only if a child is at risk of a severe regression in skills that would require six to eight weeks at the start of the regular school year to recoup.
Chapter 15 – Extended School Year (ESY), Charter SELPA As of 05/09/2019 Steering Committee Review
Page 6
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online