Three Truths underpinning Endrew v Douglas - A Significant Opportunity

In the coming weeks and months, much will be written, discussed, and debated on and about the recent unanimous Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision, Endrew. v Douglas (2017).  As a former superintendent and one who lived through the birth as well as each iteration thereafter of the initial PL 94-142, now Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), I offer a few thoughts, insights, and truths about the realities of this decision.

The foundation and goal of IDEA is to provide children with disabilities the “same opportunity” for education as their non-disabled peers.  There are six components of IDEA.  They are: Individualized Education Program (IEP), Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), Appropriate Evaluation, Parent and Teacher Participation, and Procedural Safeguards.  Though there have been legislative changes as well as litigation to further clarify these elements, the quality of “guaranteed education” for students with disabilities under IDEA had not been addressed – until Endrew v Douglas (2017).

The central issue before the court in Endrew. v Douglas (2017) was the level of educational benefit school districts must provide students with disabilities as defined by IDEA.  In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that “meaningful, appropriately ambitious” progress versus a “de minimis” standard for educational progress was not only appropriate, but the standard for schools to meet.

Central to the parents’ argument was the lack of measurable progress in meeting IEP goals and the fact that the IEP did not address “escalating” behavioral problems.  In this specific case the student was Autistic or ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder).  Understanding ASD is challenging given the unique and individual nature of the disorder. 

The reality that “if you have seen one person with autism, you’ve seen one person with autism” creates a very difficult but not insurmountable challenge to providing an educational program.  What we have learned about ASD is that with aggressive, early identification and intervention specifically in social, emotional, and behavioral skill development, ASD learners can generalize and transfer these skills in daily interactions with family, peers, and in their academic setting.  This has been done effectively and efficiently, avoiding significant costs to local and state government, not to mention life changing impact for the learner and their families.

Prevention as well as innovation are difficult concepts and practices for educators.  In the world of special education, this is even more so.  Hence, embracing “different” to achieve unprecedented results is a significant dilemma for policy and decision makers in education.

The SCOTUS ruling provides a tremendous opportunity for schools and school systems to be proactive in providing programming that can and will significantly reduce or avoid costs associated with meeting the needs of ASD learners.  To do so will require policy and decision makers to think differently.

Educators are committed to providing the highest quality educational experience for each learner. Arguably, there are situations and exceptions where educators and the education system has failed or fallen short of fulfilling this commitment. 

Endrew. v Douglas (2017) decision also calls into question the level, depth, and objectives of IEP goals with respect to educational attainment, progress, and improvement.  Simply put, such goals and those actions, strategies, and learning activities cannot be of the lowest standard.  Rather, IEP supported students must have services of a higher standards to ensure they are, in fact, progressing in their education.

From my perspective, there are three truths that are critical to understanding Endrew v Douglas.

The first truth has to do with the reality that special education funding comes from three sources, federal, state, and local revenue.  The original commitment of IDEA (PL 94-142) was a 40-40-20 funding distribution, with the federal and state government sharing the higher responsibility.  At best, the federal government has provided between 15% to 22% but never the 40% as authorized by IDEA.  This truth, unfortunately, is harsh and is fraught with conflict as IDEA is a federal law that schools and school districts must adhere and meet.

Endrew. v Douglas (2017) exposes some harsh realities that cannot and will not be discussed publicly or candidly.  That is, the actual costs to educate children with disabilities versus the costs to educate their non-disabled peers.  The issues underpinning this case would be moot if funding, resources, programming, and services were not constrained.  Money is not an answer unto itself.  Rather, fiscal resources do create opportunity to embrace different.   

The second truth is that schools and school districts have, in a significant way, provided services within the fiscal constraints they are forced to operate within.  The reality, not excuse, of limited dollars, limited resources, and limited services is not something that any educator feels good about.  In fact, in my experience, special educators including their paraprofessionals or assistants, despite the aforementioned constraints, care and act daily of, by, and for the best interests and welfare of each student they are tasked to educate.

The impact, however, of Endrew v Douglas will be significant if schools do not seize the opportunity to adjust, amend, or add services that will reduce the number of requests by parents specifically those with ASD to attend private or specialty schools to have their educational needs met.  Not to be argumentative, but a harsh reality to this truth is that outplacement and costly hours of traditional therapy have produced mixed, conflicted, or limited results.

The third truth is that the practice of “de minimis” is the confluence of limited resources and services and ineffective programming.  Underpinning “de minimis” is meeting compliance or more easily achieved goals that are not ambitious or that lead to substantive growth or improvement.  Lastly, oft conflicting or contentious learner guardian expectations and demands and the propensity to threaten or engage in actual litigation are factors contributing to a lower standard.

The ruling calls into question the level, depth, and objectives of IEP goals with respect to educational attainment, progress, and improvement.  Simply put, such goals and those actions, strategies, and learning activities cannot be of the lowest standard.  Rather, IEP supported students must have services of a higher standard to ensure they are, in fact, progressing in their education.

For my former colleagues, Endrew. v Douglas (2017) may in fact open a flood gate of requests, demands for programming and services that are not necessarily in the best interest of the learner.  This is a fear that I hope does not become reality.  However, without substantive evidence of programming effect, progress, improvement, and growth, these request, demands will in many cases be approved irrespective of the costs. 

Endrew. v Douglas (2017) is equally an opportunity to be proactive.  Over the past several years, there is a growing body of evidence that not only suggests, but demonstrates the power of aggressive, early intervention specifically with ASD learners in social, emotional, and behavioral skill development that avoids short and long term costs, creates life changing impact for the learner and their family, and results in greater participation and achievement in their academic program.

Lastly, it is times like these that the content of our character is challenged.  Knowing that school and school system leaders are committed to the proposition that “each” learner is worthy of our very best – day in and day out, I am confident that, once again, educational leaders will rise to the occasions to do what is right, good, and true for each learner entrusted to their care.