ENDREW F. V. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
2
Running head: ENDREW F. V. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
1
ENDREW F. V. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Adeola T. Okanlawon
Department of Disability Studies, CUNY School of Professional Studies
DSAB 207: Law, Policy, and Disability
Professor Anne Kelsey
September 30, 2021
Facts and Procedure: Endrew as a petitioner, a child with autism, acquired an evaluation of individualized Education programs yearly in Douglas County School District as a respondent from nursery school via the fourth year in elementary school (Conroy et al., 2019). By the fourth, the parents of Endrew knew that there was a delay in the progress of functions and education. The moment the school district suggested an IEP in the fifth grade that was similar to the ones from the previous years. The parents of Endrew detached Endrew from public school and admitted him to a dedicated private school, where he was able to make substantial progress. The petitioner’s parent filed a grievance under the person with Disability Education law (IDEA) for compensation for the child’s expenses in private school (Yell et al., 2017). Their concern was not allowed by the education department of Colorado, which the court considered at the district level. The appeals court further affirmed for the Tenth circuit though the complainants wanted a review from certiorari later on.
Issue: Did the county school as the respondent deny the right of the petitioner to allow public education that was free and appropriate under the law of people with Disability Education?
Holding: No, the court ruling was constitutional according to the person with Disability education law, which creates a fundamental right to accurate and free public education for specified students with disabilities (Iuliano, 2019). The ruling was that according to the act of IDEA, students in public schools with disabilities are supposed to receive higher benefits than the rest in comparison to the order of countable lower courts.
Reasoning: In my opinion, the court was constitutional since it focused on handling everyone equally regarding the persons with disabilities and prioritized the public-school students regarding the law (Howell, 2016). However, the complainant was denied the chance because it was evident in the facts of the case that the parents were able and could afford his school fees. Further, Endrew could not be considered since he was moved to a specialized private school, thus not meeting the Individual with Disability Education (Prince et al., 2018). Also, the time the parents filed complaints about compensation of the expenses of Endrew. At the same time, in private schools, the support was only meant for the public school under the individual act of Disability Education.
Conclusion: The supreme court of the United States of America considered that the IEP nature process makes sure that the representatives of school and parents will communicate their suggestions on the extend of IEP progress of the child (Yell, 2019). Therefore, when any disagreement spreads court, the school rulers tend to have the opportunities to show the profession they have and ruling to consider points of contention. The moment a student is combined in the regular classroom, offering a FAPE that feels the particular requirement of a student with a disability, classically defining offering instructions level reasonably evaluated to allow improvement via general academics (Conroy et al., 2019). For the sake of attaining the important obligation regarding the Individual with disability education law concluding that school at the district level has to provide IEP accurately evaluated to make sure a student considers the right move and improvement. In favor of the conditions of the child, the appeal freed the court ruling and remanded for more proceedings.
References
Conroy, T., & Yell, M. L. (2019). Free Appropriate Public Education After Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017). Touro L. Rev., 35, 101.
Howell, H. T. (2016). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District: How much benefit is enough when evaluating the educational needs of disabled students in federally-funded public schools. Am. J. Trial Advoc., 40, 347.
Iuliano, A. (2019). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District: The Supreme Court’s Elusive Attempt to Close the Gap Between Some Educational Benefit and Meaningful Educational Benefit. Touro L. Rev., 35, 261.
Prince, A. M., Yell, M. L., & Katsiyannis, A. (2018). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): The US Supreme Court and Special Education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(5), 321-324.
Yell, M. L. (2019). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): Implications for educating students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 45(1), 53-62.
Yell, M. L., & Bateman, D. F. (2017). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) FAPE and the US supreme court. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(1), 7-15.
The post ENDREW F. V. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 Running head: ENDREW F. appeared first on PapersSpot.
