Procedure – Category 5000 (Students)
AR 5005.4 – Extended School Year (ESY)
g. If during the regular academic year an individual’s IEP specifies integration in the regular classroom, a public education agency is not required to meet that component of the IEP if no regular summer school programs are being offered by that agency. NOTE: The regulation governing extended school year ("ESY") services has been amended to be consistent with federal law, which allows SEAs to set ESY standards for their states. The new regulation deletes obsolete language which set forth the maximum number of school days for reimbursement but keeps intact California’s ESY standard of a minimum of 20 instructional days.
2.3
Case Law
Due process cases and court decisions have provided guidance in determining what constitutes FAPE and/or a child’s need for ESY services. In 1982, a landmark United States Supreme Court decision established a substantive standard for the provision of FAPE. Board of Education of the Hendrick-Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) . The Rowley decision required an LEA to provide a “‘basic floor of opportunity’ . . . [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.
Adapted from Guidelines for Determining Need for Extended School Year (ESY) Services, Riverside County Special Education Local Plan Area, 2014. Reprinted in this handbook with permission.
AR 5005.4 – Extended School Year (ESY)
Page 6
Desert Mountain Special Education Local Plan Area (DMSELPA) (rev. 09/17)
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator