It’s hard to believe that it wasn’t until the mid-1970s that children with disabilities even had the right to attend public school. Conferred only after several ground-breaking Supreme Court cases, and the passage of The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (the EHA), this right entitled access to enter through the school’s doors. There was little in the Supreme Court rulings or the EHA to indicate that children with disabilities had the right to receive a quality education.

In 1982, with the Supreme Court’s decision in Board of Education v. Rowley, we as a nation took some steps toward addressing the issue of educational quality for children with disabilities.

In Rowley, the Court held that the requirement in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, formerly EHA) to provide a “substantively adequate program of education to all eligible children,” is satisfied when a child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.”

In that case, where little Amy Rowley was educated in the regular education classroom, the Court held, that her IEP must be “reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade.” At the time, this clear standard provided crucial guidance.

The Court in Rowley, however, failed to explicitly address what constitutes “educational benefit” when the special education and related services outlined in a child’s IEP are delivered outside the regular classroom setting. Fortunately, the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District directly addresses this question.

Further, the Endrew ruling corrects a standard set by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that a merely “de minimus” educational benefit was all that a school district was required to provide a child with disabilities via his or her Individualized Education Program (IEP).

Instead, the Supreme Court held that “to meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” (emphasis added).

While the Endrew decision is certainly a step in the right direction, it still leaves the responsibility for creating an effective IEP squarely on the shoulders of educators and parents. The Court was clear that it was unwilling to substitute its own judgment as to what constitutes an appropriate IEP in light of a child’s circumstances citing that “the benefits obtainable by children [with disabilities] at one end of the spectrum will differ dramatically from those obtainable by children [with disabilities] at the other end, with infinite variations in between.”

Working in concert, therefore, educators and parents are charged with creating an “appropriately ambitious program” that (a) meets the unique needs of a child, (b) allows him or her access to the general education curriculum, and (c) provides the means by which s/he can “advance appropriately toward attaining annual goals.”

Under the best circumstances, creating effective IEPs for eligible children with disabilities is challenging. Additional obstacles also exist for both the educators and family members at the table. Educators, for instance, are often unaware of the full extent of what special education laws actually require.

After all, they went to school to become teachers, not lawyers. In addition, many schools are ill-equipped to provide the instruction and services that a child truly needs because of, among other things, the lack of qualified personnel and appropriate programs.

Parents and family members, for their part, likewise struggle with lack of knowledge about relevant education laws, a perceived imbalance of power with the “professionals” around the IEP Team table, and little awareness of advocacy strategies to use when there is disagreement with the school about services.

Strained relationships between families and school personnel--an unfortunate but commonplace occurrence--only compound the aforementioned challenges.

Caregiving: It’s everyone’s business (including employers)

Given what’s at stake -- a child’s future -- the level of expertise required on the part of both educators and parents is daunting. It’s not just about what the law does and doesn’t require; it’s also about understanding the specifics of different disabilities and the particular circumstances of the individual child in question -- his or her strengths, interests, and challenges.

To be truly successful, educators and parents alike must together embrace a commitment to best practices in teaching and learning, and, perhaps most important of all, they must believe absolutely and without apology that children--all children--have a right to a quality education.

This belief must also extend beyond the walls of schools and homes and into the workplace. The majority of children with disabilities have at least one parent who works full time. These persistent parents -- many of whom are also beleaguered and stressed juggling work and family responsibilities -- are your employees, your colleagues, and, maybe even your boss.

And they need the support of their employer in the form of flexible policies and targeted benefits that provide access to the resources they need to ensure their children’s success at school and in life. Parents shouldn’t have to go to court to get what their children need. No doubt, the Supreme Court would agree.

Instant Insights /

The Supreme Court makes the case that caregiving is everyone's business

More From HR Executive

Related Stories

Recommended For You