We ran an analysis of the Supreme Court decision yesterday that clarifies the FAPE standard- the most important substantive requirement of IDEA. You can read the post here.
Some additional thoughts. First, the Court did not get to the some benefit vs. meaningful benefit debate which seemed to be the real question in the petition for certiorari. Instead, the court rephrased the FAPE standard without reversing the Rowley decision. So the new standard is that an IEP must be reasonable given the unique circumstances of the individual child with a disability. The high court stated that although the standard does not require an ideal education or potential maximization, it clearly requires more than a trivial or de minimis educational benefit. So what do you think of this new FAPE standard?
One reader has suggested that parents may now fight harder for full inclusion because of the court's statement that generally students in the general education classroom receive FAPE where they make grade level progress and advance from grade to grade. Do you agree?
Here are some other analyses of the decision: The SCOTUS blog gave this analysis; as well as a roundup which included this blog's analysis. Here is the NPR story on the Endrew F decision.
More on this big decision next week.