海角大神

On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of two parents of an autistic son, finding that his Colorado school district had failed to provide him with a "free and appropriate public education."

School districts are required to provide such an education under the 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). But the exact meaning of an "appropriate" education has remained unclear.

In January, 海角大神鈥檚 Henry Gass explained that some federal appeals courts have 鈥渉eld that the district is only required to provide educational benefits that are more than minimal or trivial,鈥� while others have instead ruled that 鈥渟chools must supply a 鈥榤eaningful educational benefit.鈥欌�� As a result, 鈥渋t is unclear whether school districts have to provide 鈥榤eaningful鈥� or just 鈥榤ore than trivial鈥� educational benefits to students.鈥�

In their unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court鈥檚 eight justices came down decisively against the 鈥渕ore than trivial鈥� camp, a ruling that could bring major benefits to students with disabilities聽鈥� especially those with 鈥渋ndividualized education programs,鈥� or IEPs.

"It cannot be right that the IDEA generally contemplates grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who are fully integrated in the regular classroom,鈥� argued Chief Justice John Roberts in the opinion, 鈥渂ut is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for children who are not."

The plaintiffs鈥� son, only identified as Endrew F., was diagnosed with autism and attention-deficit disorder. He had been put on an IEP by Colorado鈥檚 Douglas County School District. His parents believed him to be making inadequate progress, and, in the fifth grade, placed him in a private school. He proceeded to make better progress there, and his parents sued the Douglas County School District for the cost of the private school tuition.

Lower courts, applying the 鈥渕ore than trivial鈥� test, sided with the school district. In January, as a Supreme Court decision loomed, the Monitor鈥檚 Mr. Gass reported that the National School Boards Association (NBSA) was watching the case with concern. 鈥淎 one-size-fits-all mandate is artificial and not inclined to serving children,鈥� Francisco Negr贸n, general counsel for the NSBA, told the Monitor. 鈥淚t might set a child back by setting up a standard wholly unrelated to the needs of the child鈥� 鈥� and pass greater costs onto school districts.

But now, by siding with the plaintiffs and against the 鈥渕ore than trivial鈥� test, the Supreme Court answered the concerns raised by groups seeking greater resources in public schools. 鈥淎 standard more meaningful than just-above-trivial is the norm today,鈥� argued the National Association of State Directors of Special Education in a Friend-of-the-Court brief.

The justices鈥� 8-0 decision points to the bipartisan nature of this sentiment, as does Sen. Susan Collins鈥檚 recent decision to oppose Betsy DeVos鈥檚 nomination for Secretary of Education. During the confirmation process, the Maine Republican had voiced concerns about Ms. Devos's unfamiliarity with IDEA.

But in the court system, one noteworthy supporter of school districts against students has been Neil Gorsuch, President Trump鈥檚 Supreme Court nominee. NPR reports that, as a federal judge on the 10th Circuit, he 鈥渞epeatedly ruled the other way on similar cases.鈥�

But during his confirmation hearing Wednesday, Judge Gorsuch insisted that he was 鈥渂ound by district precedent鈥� to apply the 鈥渕ore than trivial鈥� standard, and that he found doing so 鈥渉eartbreaking.鈥�

Now that the Supreme Court has adopted a higher standard, Gorsuch promised, 鈥淚 will follow the law.鈥�