Education Week - October 12, 2016 - 16

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS Court to Weigh Level of Benefits for Special Ed. Students Case could yield landmark ruling By Christina A. Samuels Just how much benefit must a student receive through special education to meet the goals of the key federal law? Four decades after the passage of what was to become the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the U.S. Supreme Court plans to take up that question in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. Experts in special education law say the court's decision could mean as much to educators as the landmark case Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson Central School District, which in 1982 defined the central question of special education law: What is a "free, appropriate public education?" Endrew F. "potentially will be as important as Rowley to shape what we do in special education for years to come," said Antonis Katsiyannis, the president of the Council for Ex- ceptional Children and a professor at Clemson University with a focus on special education law. "[It's] very exciting to have the Supreme Court addressing the meaning of [free, appropriate education] again." 'Meaningful' vs. 'Some' In Rowley, the Supreme Court said that the IDEA requires instruction that is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit." The court intentionally declined to say just how much benefit would be adequate. "[C]ourts must be careful to avoid imposing their view of preferable educational methods upon the states," Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the six-justice majority. But lower courts have grappled with that question and come up with different terms. Should the educational benefit to students be "meaningful"? Are schools required to offer just "some" benefit? Or can the standard be met if educational benefits are little more than trivial? That's the question that the newer case is intended to answer. Endrew, called "Drew" in court briefs, is now a 17-year-old student with autism living in suburban Denver. In 2010, his parents pulled him out of the 66,000-student Douglas County district because they said he wasn't making any meaningful edu- court ruling in August 2015 said that Drew was gaining "some" educational benefit from his individualized education program. Referring to an earlier case in the same circuit, the court also said the IDEA requires that special education only offer a more than "de minimis," or trivial, benefit. " Are we serving the purpose of IDEA by requiring some meaningful benefit in light of the child's potential?" JACK D. ROBINSON Lawyer for Endrew F.'s parents able' or 'proper' education 'in the circumstances' when all the child has received are benefits that are barely more than trivial," wrote the U.S. solicitor general's office, urging the Supreme Court to take the case. "That is particularly true when a child is capable of achieving much more." The 10th Circuit Court is among several that have said educational benefits under special education need be only more than trivial, the solicitor general's brief said. Other circuits, however, have stated that educational benefits must be "meaningful," a more robust standard. That is a disagreement that only the U.S. Supreme Court can resolve, the solicitor general's brief says. Setting a Standard cational progress in public school. The parents argued that the district should be required to pay for Drew's private school tuition. An administrative-law judge, a federal district judge, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals all decided against the parents. The appeals- While the parents lost at the lower-court levels, they gained a powerful supporter when they appealed to the Supreme Court-the federal government. "No parent or educator in America would say that a child has received an 'appropriate' or a 'specially suit- Paula Hans, a spokeswoman for the Douglas County district, said in a statement that "it would be inappropriate to discuss the specifics of the case while it is still being litigated, but the court's decision is not a decision on the merits, and we look forPAGE 19 > Literacy Program Reflects Clinton Policy Agenda In June 2013, a "still jet-lagged" Hillary Clinton addressed the Clinton Global Initiative America meeting in Chicago-her first major appearance since stepping down as U.S. secretary of state four months earlier. She announced that early-childhood development, "which ha[s] been close to my heart my entire adult life," would be part of her portfolio at the philanthropy, now that she had entered private life. Clinton's time as a private citizen was brief. But the initiative she launched at that meeting-Too Small to Fail-continues its work, focused on encouraging parents to see themselves as their children's first teachers and enlisting such partners as hospitals, television writers, playground developers, and citybased philanthropies. In the case of a Clinton victory in next month's presidential election, Too Small to Fail's profile could rise even higher by virtue of its focus on domestic issues. Former President Bill Clinton has said the foundation would stop taking foreign money if his wife were to become president. The foundation's high-profile international work would spin off to other organizations, leaving its focus on issues within the borders of the United States. "Healthy kids and loving families need no economic justification. That's what everyone should want and work for," Hillary Clinton said at that 2013 meeting, in a speech that was seen as laying the foundation for future political aspirations. "But ask yourself: If we don't apply what we know to helping our kids to the best of their abilities, to take their role in our country and the world, are we really going to be able maintain the American dream?" Ramin Rahimian for Education Week By Christina A. Samuels Too Small to Fail is a joint project between the foundation and The Opportunity Institute in Berkeley, Calif. The Opportunity Institute is a nonprofit spinoff of Next Generation, a San Francisco-based policy and communications organization that was the original partner with the Clinton Foundation on the initiative. Funding for Too Small to Fail comes from the two organizations. The operating expenses are handled by the Clinton Foundation and in 2014 were a portion of a $13.8 million line item for "other programs." The Opportunity Institute, as a new organization, is still in the process of compiling income and expenses for the Internal Revenue Service. Next Generation, the former Too Small to Fail partner, spent about $5 million on child and family issues in 2014, which included both Too Small to Fail and California-focused work. At 3 years old, the initiative is young-but it has developed an extensive strategy to envelop families in the message that talking, reading, and singing to their young children, from birth, is essential. "We were influenced by new brain-science research" and about the critical role that parents play in their children's early development, said Patti Miller, who co-directs Too Small to Fail from the foundation side. Ann O'Leary, a senior policy adviser to the Clinton campaign, was Too Small to Fail's first director at the foundation. Kara Dukakis, who directs Too Small to Fail efforts for The Opportunity Institute, said "that PAGE 19 > 16 | EDUCATION WEEK | October 12, 2016 | www.edweek.org Messages encouraging parents to talk, read, and sing with their children as part of a nationwide Too Small to Fail initiative to promote early brain and language development were recently installed at the Officer Willie Wilkins Park in Oakland, Calif. http://www.edweek.org

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Education Week - October 12, 2016