Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
A fresh look at special education law-mostly in understandable English.
Pages
Free Subscription to Special Education Law Blog via email
Free Subscription to Special Education Law Blog via RSS Feed
This Blog Wins Big Award
More Honors
IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE - Please Note
This Special Education Law Blog is intended for educational purposes only. Nothing said in the posts, comments or elsewhere in this blog should be construed as legal advice. If you have a dispute or any other legal problem, you should confer with an attorney who is licensed to practice law in your state. Any reference or description of individuals that resembles actual persons or any reference to what appears to be personally identifiable information is purely coincidental and unintentional. All comments, posts or other discussion should be accepted in the spirit of philosophical debate rather than as instruction or advice of any kind. Any abusive, profane, offensive or defamatory language of any kind is strictly prohibited and will not be tolerated.
Disclosure Policy(FTC) (effective 05/23/2014)
This blog is a personal and business blog written and edited by Jim Gerl. For questions about this blog, please contact jimgerl@gmail.com. Since January 1, 2017, this blog accepts paid advertising, sponsorship and/or paid insertions. I write for my own purposes and also for exposure of my business. However, it is possible that I may be influenced by my background, occupation, religion, political affiliation or experience. Since January 1, 2017, the owner of this blog receives compensation from advertisers. This blog may contain content which could present a conflict of interest; such content will be identified in the post in which it occurs.
Disclosure Policy(FTC) (effective 05/23/2014)
This blog is a personal and business blog written and edited by Jim Gerl. For questions about this blog, please contact jimgerl@gmail.com. Since January 1, 2017, this blog accepts paid advertising, sponsorship and/or paid insertions. I write for my own purposes and also for exposure of my business. However, it is possible that I may be influenced by my background, occupation, religion, political affiliation or experience. Since January 1, 2017, the owner of this blog receives compensation from advertisers. This blog may contain content which could present a conflict of interest; such content will be identified in the post in which it occurs.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Search This Blog
Blog Archive
Translate This Blog Into Another Language
Michigan's state standard is "maximum potential," although it tends to get watered down in practice.
ReplyDelete"IDEA requires an IEP to confer a meaningful educational benefit gauged in relation to the potential of the child at issue". "Meaningful", as it relates to "potential" should be rigorous instruction for a child with a high capacity. Services are too often watered down.
ReplyDeleteThanks Anon,
ReplyDeleteI know that a few jurisdictions, like the U S Virgin Islands, have voluntarily adopted a higher standard. Thanks for the info.
JG
AFA,
ReplyDeleteI think that the Supreme Court difers with you about the potential of the child, Many agree with you though about what should be the standard. Please see this post for more discussion:
http://specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/rowley-fape-standard-some-vs-meaningful.html
JG