Douglas County School District Research Articles

OCR finds district may have retaliated

Case name: Letter re: Douglas County School District, No. 08‐22‐1053 (08/02/23).

OCR finds district may have retaliated

Case name: Letter re: Douglas County School District, No. 08‐22‐1053 (08/02/23).

Clarifying the Free Appropriate Public Education Standard Post-Endrew for School Leaders

All the federal laws and policies relating to individuals with disabilities aim to achieve four major goals: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. The free appropriate public education (FAPE) plays an integral role in contributing to achieving these goals. The purpose of this paper was to obtain more understanding of the meaning of FAPE for students with disabilities especially after the case of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District in Colorado in 2017. It is significant for administrators and teachers understand the ruling in Endrew because this decision will critically affect special education programs. Several implications for school leaders after the case of Endrew.

Indicators of Progress in the Wake of Endrew F.: The Distinction Between Professional Recommendations and Judicial Rulings

The central obligation under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act is to provide each eligible student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court revised the prior substantive standard for determining FAPE that the court had developed in Board of Education v. Rowley (1982). The Endrew F. court modified the Rowley standard of requiring the individualized education program (IEP) to be reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit to requiring a student's IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the student to “make progress appropriate in light of the student's circumstances.” The purpose of this article is to compare what the post– Endrew F. courts use with what the professional literature recommends as measures of appropriate progress. The results inform special education practitioners about the significant discrepancy between the courts’ focus on the “must” of legal requirements and the “should” of professional recommendations. The discussion suggests ways that special education professionals can use their expertise to inform courts and legislatures to narrow this gap for the benefit of more effective progress for students with disabilities.

Systematic Progress Monitoring of Individualized Education Program Goals in Mathematics

The review of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District case revealed that an Individualized Education Program (IEP) requires inclusion of specific measurable goals to ensure educational benefit. The purpose of this article is to provide a systematic approach to progress monitoring IEP goals in mathematics, which monitors whether a student is benefiting from the mathematics instruction being provided. Using curriculum-based measures (CBM) is discussed as a feasible tool for monitoring the progress of students and creating specific measurable IEP goals. The article includes step-by-step strategies and guidelines for teachers to collect CBM data, create strategic IEP goals, and evaluate student progress.

M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School District (2017): Implications for Special Educators

Five days after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School District. This important decision involved a student who was being served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The student was blind and required a high level of support in all academic areas. The case addressed important issues regarding parental participation throughout the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process and the school district’s obligation to implement the IEP. This column (a) examines this decision by providing the facts of the case, including the decisions at the due process hearing level, U.S. district court, and U.S. Court of Appeals; (b) explores the ruling by the court of appeals decision; and (c) discusses implications of this decision for special education administrators and teachers.

Interview with Jean Kirshner, co-founder of Belize Education Project

Jean Kirshner holds a Ph.D. in Education and Human Resource Development from Colorado State University and specializes in literacy and teacher education. I came to know Jean and her school adoption project in the process of publishing her article in our previous issue. She graciously accepted my invitation for this interview that we carried out through emails in July, 2020. In this interview, you will be reading about Jean and the impact she and her colleagues have created in the lives of school children. You will learn more about Jean as you read through, but here is a brief introduction. Jean started her career as the Early Childhood Director at Saint Ignatius Grammar School, Chicago in 1988. After two years she joined the Child Opportunity Program in Denver as a Head Start Supervising Teacher. In 1994, she became a kindergarten teacher and has been a First Grade Teacher since 2006 in Douglas County School District, Parker, Colorado. She co-founded the Belize Education Program in 2007 which is the main topic of this interview. The world needs more inspiring educators like Jean who contribute selflessly especially to the underprivileged communities that need more love and attention.

Defining Educational Benefit: An Update on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017)

Defining Educational Benefit: An Update on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling in <i>Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District</i> (2017)

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): Implications for Educating Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled on a special education case Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. In this important case, the High Court addressed the degree of educational benefit necessary for a school district to fulfill the requirements for a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The ruling was especially meaningful for the field of emotional and behavioral disorders, because the plaintiff in this case, Endrew F., exhibited serious academic difficulties and behavior problems. In this article, I first analyze the IDEA’s definition of FAPE and the importance of addressing students’ behavior problems in their individualized education programs (IEPs) to provide a FAPE. Second, I examine the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Endrew decision, specifically addressing the impact of the school district’s failure to address a student’s behaviors in his IEP. Third, I discuss the implications of the Endrew ruling for developing and implementing IEPs for students with serious behavior problems. I end by advocating for changes in the upcoming reauthorization of the IDEA to bring the law into conformity with the spirit and letter of this important ruling.

Special Education as Neoliberal Property: The Racecraft, Biopolitics, and Immunization of Disability

Through the juxtaposition of 2 recent Supreme Court actions—Allston v. Lower Merion County School District (2015) and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017)—this article argues that special education is a neoliberal property that works to recruit disability through scientific-juridical qualifications of educational life that are more likely to be available for White students who have essentialized disabilities than students of color who are ascribed disability labels. This thesis draws from a variety of theoretical perspectives—including, racecraft, biopolitics, and immunization—to formulate a crip reading of present special education policy. Although critiquing overrepresentation and disproportionality, this article also suggests a way of dialectically attenting to the uses of disability labeling toward the reciprocal production of pathological ableism and biopolitical racism. Moving from a racecraft of disability labeling to a biopolitics of special education, this article concludes by arguing that Whiteness recruits disability into its self-enclosed and propertied boundaries with the effect that educational life is contractually immunized against communal obligations to human difference. James Baldwin’s (1963/1998), “A Talk to Teachers,” critically inflects this conclusion and also motivates the article’s analytical excursion into the troubling nexus of special education policy, neoliberalism, and Whiteness.

A Call for Amicus Briefs as a Means to Influence Special Education Policy: Lessons Learned From Endrew F.

Given the legal nature of special education, a particularly promising avenue for infusing research into practice is through court cases. Recent work has illuminated the influence of amicus briefs in court decisions. An amicus brief is a nonparty brief submitted by a person, group of people, or organization that provides insight and expertise on issues presented in a case. In this exploratory study, we examined how interest groups, through the amicus brief process, used research in a recent Supreme Court case, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. The case focused on a fundamental principle at the heart of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the definition of a free appropriate public education, an issue in which researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike should be interested. Our findings indicate that researchers and research played a limited role in the briefing process. We conclude with a discussion of potential reasons for the lack of research in the briefing process, as well as a call for the field to use amicus briefs as a means to influence special education policy and practice.

Instruction in Co-Teaching in the Age of Endrew F.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District focused attention on outcomes for students with disabilities. It is not just about participating; it is about the instruction and outcomes from those services. Co-teaching is a prevalent service delivery model for students with disabilities who access the general curriculum. Much has been written about co-teaching but not necessarily about the instruction that takes place in a co-taught classroom. In this case study, we present a preliminary investigation of a conceptual model for instruction in co-teaching. We report teacher and student behavior change as well as contextual variables that had an impact on implementation.

Re-envisioning Teacher Preparation in an Era of Endrew F.: Instruction Over Access

The Supreme Court decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) established a higher standard of what constitutes an appropriate education for students receiving special education. In contrast to the previous standard provided in the Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) decision, which established that some benefit (even minimal or trivial benefit) was acceptable, the Endrew F. decision reflected a higher standard for the delivery of special education. Specifically, special education should result in measurable progress toward individualized education program goals. This article explores what it means for special education teacher educators to prepare teacher candidates to meet this higher standard. In particular, how a focus on instruction (i.e., the delivery of specially designed instruction) rather than a focus on access to the general curriculum is necessary in order for meaningful, measurable change to occur in the outcomes of students with high-incidence disabilities will be explored.

Comparative Research on the Right to Education of Children with Disabilities - Focusing on the FAPE under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District -

Comparative Research on the Right to Education of Children with Disabilities - Focusing on the FAPE under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District -

Envisioning an Improved Continuum of Special Education Services for Students with Learning Disabilities: Considering Intervention Intensity

AbstractIn Endrew F. v Douglas County School District RE‐1, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the requirement that schools provide special education services designed to confer educational benefit that is more than de minimis. Endrew offers an opportunity for the special education community to consider whether students with learning disabilities have access to a full continuum of services, including individualized, data‐driven, and intensive interventions. We examine predominant models of service delivery, highlight concerns that these are insufficient, and envision an improved continuum of services better aligned with the raised expectations of Endrew. We also highlight important barriers that need to be addressed before an improved continuum can be implemented in many schools in the United States.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) and special education law: What teachers and administrators need to know

ABSTRACTEven though special education law is covered in most teacher and administrative certification programs, it is an area that is continually evolving. The results of the 2017 U.S. Supreme Court case Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District will have a lasting impact on the future of special education guidelines; the outcomes of this case will also have implications on best practice for students with disabilities. The findings of this case, along with other recent court findings, will be used as a framework to help both teachers and administrators prevent similar situations in their own districts. Specific approaches and strategies will be discussed and detailed resources are provided to help readers remain current with future trends in special education law.

Educational Equality for Children with Disabilities: The 2016 Term Cases

One of the most longstanding debates in educational policy pits the goal of equality against the goal of adequacy: Should we aim to guarantee that all children receive an equal education? Or simply that they all receive an adequate education? The general equality-versus adequacy debate replicates itself at a more specific level when we focus on the educational services provided to students with disabilities. When Congress adopted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975 (the statute now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), it estimated that a million disabled children “were ‘excluded entirely from the public school system’” with millions more “receiving an inappropriate education.” The EAHCA required that every child with a disability receive a “free appropriate public education.” That mandate plainly barred schools from excluding disabled children, but what kind of education was required? What was “appropriate”? In its earliest case under the EACHA — the Rowley case, decided in 1982 — the Court refused to read the requirement of an “appropriate” education for children with disabilities as guaranteeing that they receive “‘equal’ educational opportunities.” It instead adopted a variant of an adequacy standard. This past Term, the Court revisited Rowley for the first time since that case was decided 35 years earlier. In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, the Court rejected the “merely more than de minimis” test that the Tenth Circuit had applied to determine what educational benefit was sufficient for a free appropriate public education. But it specifically rejected the Petitioner’s argument that the IDEA required schools to aim to provide an equal educational opportunity. By rejecting an equal-opportunity standard for determining compliance with the free appropriate public education requirement, Endrew F., like Rowley before it, responded to the difficulty in specifying equal opportunity in a way that courts can implement. In some respects, that decision was understandable and perhaps sensible. But equal opportunity concerns still lie below the surface of the Court’s opinion in Endrew F., and they remain a crucial foundation of the IDEA’s requirements. And, exactly one month before it decided Endrew F., the Court made clear that children with disabilities are entitled to an equal educational opportunity. That entitlement rests, not on the IDEA, but on the ADA. In Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, the Court held that a disabled child could enforce the ADA’s requirements of equal participation in education independently of the IDEA — and could do so without first going through the IDEA’s complex administrative procedures so long as she was not seeking relief for the denial of a free appropriate public education. When Fry and Endrew F. are read together, they establish that children with disabilities do have federal rights to equal opportunity in education — but that the ADA, not the IDEA, is the key vehicle for enforcing those rights. The equality right under the ADA is different in important ways from the one that the Endrew F. petitioner asked the Court to read into the IDEA, though.

Did the Fry Decision Under the IDEA Overturn Rowley?

Although most special education experts anxiously awaited the Supreme Court's decision during the 2016-2017 term in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 as an opportunity to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Board of Education v. Rowley, the most important case of the term was actually Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools. The Fry decision seemingly broadened the situations in which parents of children in special education can pursue remedies on behalf of their children under the Americans with Disabilities Act or Section 504 without exhausting their IDEA remedies. Specifically, a child like Amy Rowley, who is deaf can now attain success under Section 504 or the ADA even though she failed to attain relief under the IDEA. The Fry decision has dramatic consequences for special education students who are seeking effective communication in the classroom.

Some Benefit or Some Benefit

ABSTRACTThe Policy–Advocacy–Leadership column is developed to initiate and facilitate important dialogue about health care and educational policy, and develop and share the knowledge, tools, and resources that enable occupational therapy practitioners to be effective advocates for our clients and our practice and leaders in our practice settings and profession. In this column, we discuss the historic ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District case and the impact the ruling may have on determining the educational benefit of children with disabilities.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): The U.S. Supreme Court and Special Education

On March 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. This case addressed the question how much educational benefit are public schools required to provide to students with disabilities under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to confer a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The purpose of this legal update is to provide a brief overview of court developments regarding FAPE, summarize Endrew, and provide implications for practice.