Podcasts about endrew f

Extended School Year (ESY) services can raise nuanced questions for IEP teams and special education professionals. On this episode of the Lozano Smith Podcast, host Aly R. Bivins talks with Roxana E. Khan and Erin Frazor about how ESY differs from summer school, the legal requirements under the IDEA, and how to make sound, individualized decisions. They round out the conversation by highlighting common pitfalls and offering practical tips to ensure compliance, including the importance of clear documentation. Show Notes & References 2:10 – ESY (Extended School Year services) vs. Summer School 2:52  – FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education) and ESY 3:40 – Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (Client News Brief 12 - March 2017) 5:54 – Common ESY issues and questions 8:18 – How to determine eligibility for ESY 8:45 – Regression/Recoupment Analysis applied in California 10:14 – Three other standards determined by the courts 14:08 – What to provide during ESY 21:21 – When to make ESY determination 25:10 – Determining ESY eligibility for incoming students with less available information 28:01 – Litigation regarding ESY 34:17 – Does ESY only apply during the summer? 37:14 – Does the IDEA speak to Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) in relation to ESY? 38:45 – M.C. by & through S.B. v. Los Angeles Unified School District (C.D. Cal., Aug. 9, 2023) Case No. 2:20-CV-09127-CBM-E, 2023 WL 11066079 40:07 – Continuum of ESY placement options   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

You asked for it......this episode is alllllllllll Angela! Join us as we break down Endrew v. Douglas and what it means for FAPE. Endrew v DouglasThe USDOE considers Endrew to be such an important case they have devoted significant resources to unpacking the decision - you can find the whole discussion here:USDOE summary of the case.  If you are interested in a brief summary, here is what USDOE has to say today:"On March 22, 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court (sometimes referred to as Court) issued a unanimous opinion in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988. In that case, the Court interpreted the scope of the free appropriate public education (FAPE) requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Court overturned the Tenth Circuit's decision that Endrew, a child with autism, was only entitled to an educational program that was calculated to provide “merely more than de minimis” educational benefit. In rejecting the Tenth Circuit's reasoning, the Supreme Court determined that, “[t]o meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP [individualized education program] that is reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances.” The Court additionally emphasized the requirement that “every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives.”The Endrew F. decision is important because it informs our efforts to improve academic outcomes for children with disabilities. To this end, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) is providing parents and other stakeholders information on the issues addressed in Endrew F. and the impact of the Court's decision on the implementation of the IDEA. Because the decision in Endrew F. clarified the scope of the IDEA's FAPE requirements, the Department's Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is interested in receiving comments from families, teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders to assist us in identifying implementation questions and best practices. If you are interested in commenting on this document or have additional questions, please send them to OSERS by email at EndrewF@ed.gov."Please tell us how you found us by completing this surveyEmail us at ASTALPodcast@gmail.comFollow us on Instagram @astalpodcast

Today's episode is Part 2 of our conversation with Jack Robinson, a partner and co-founder of the law firm Spies, Powers, and Robinson, in Denver, CO. In last week's episode, he highlighted his landmark case, Endrew F v. Douglas County School District, and we discussed its impact for students with disabilities across the nation. Our focus today is Jack's perspective on the state of special education today and how things can differ from one jurisdiction to another. As we usually do, we are taking a summer break from podcast episodes, but we wrap up on a high note with today's continuing conversation with Jack. As we put this school year behind us, we look forward to a fun and relaxing summer as we gear up for the upcoming 2023-2024 school year. We wish you all a wonderful summer, and please keep up with us on social media and connect with us there until we return with new episodes. Join us now for more with Jack Robinson!Show Highlights:Jack's initial reaction to the Supreme Court ruling in the Endrew F. case What he was trying to accomplish in taking the case to the Supreme CourtWhat Jack has seen since the Court's decision was handed down AND the pandemic occurred regarding actual systemic change in education in the USKey takeaways from Jack: The value of communication and collaboration when it comes to the best interests of all childrenLinks/Resources:Connect with Jack: WebsiteContact us on social media or through our website for more information on the IEP Learning Center: www.inclusiveeducationproject.org Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every Tuesday.If you enjoyed this episode and believe in our message, then please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, or Google Play. It helps other listeners find this show.Be sure to connect with us and reach out with any questions/concerns:FacebookInstagram–We are doing videos on Instagram, so connect with us there and send us your questions!TwitterIEP websiteEmail us

We are so honored to have today's guest with us for an inside look at a groundbreaking case in the field of special education litigation. Jack Robinson is a partner and co-founder of Spies, Powers, and Robinson, a law firm located in Denver, Colorado. He took one of the biggest cases in special education all the way to the US Supreme Court in 2017. In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, Jack represented a family that sued their school district, claiming it did not provide their autistic son with an adequate education as required by federal law. The monumental Supreme Court ruling in the case raised the standard that schools must meet in educating students with disabilities, potentially impacting millions of students across the country. Show Highlights:How the background on the Endrew F. case actually began with the Supreme Court ruling on the Thompson School District v. Luke P. case in 2008Why the Endrew F. case originated because the child was making no progress or advancement on IEP goals or objectives, along with regressing behaviorWhy it's disheartening when the concept of what's “right for the child” is completely ignoredWhere the state of our education system is right now, with no spirit of collaboration with parents and a predominant “Us vs. Them” mentalityThe basic timeline of the Endrew F. caseHow due process and appeals in special education cases can take years, years, and more yearsLinks/Resources:Contact us on social media or through our website for more information on the IEP Learning Center: www.inclusiveeducationproject.org Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every Tuesday.If you enjoyed this episode and believe in our message, then please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, or Google Play. It helps other listeners find this show.Be sure to connect with us and reach out with any questions/concerns:FacebookInstagram–We are doing videos on Instagram, so connect with us there and send us your questions!TwitterIEP websiteEmail us: admin@iepcalifornia.org

  Based on the professional peer-reviewed research, intersectionality can be understood as the phenomenon in which an individual person's social position relative to more than one socially defining characteristic, such as race, language, gender, disability, socioeconomic status, etc., come together to simultaneously impact a person's status in and access to society at large. Where a person fits into the world is a matter of multidimensional considerations.   When looking at the question of whether the current mechanisms of our system of government, and the behavioral rewards inherently built into them, truly serve the good of the people according to the will of the people and the rule of law, the importance of intersectionality to the accuracy of our analyses cannot be overstated. There is no “silver bullet” that will eliminate all of our social challenges with a single shot. Solving our complex, interconnected problems takes complex planning and execution.   Society is a complex system of inextricably intertwined considerations that all have to be accounted for in order for everyone's needs and rights to be equally met. There are no cutting corners, and we now have the computing power to stitch together effective systems of equity for all into the ways our government functions, if the technology is just used the right way. The fail-safes that can be built in and the audit trails that would be automatically created would prevent and capture any attempts at abuse just as a matter of normal functioning.   We aren't there yet, but the application of enterprise-class computing technologies to the delivery of publicly funded services is inevitable, and it will streamline a lot of inter- and intra-agency operations, trimming the administrative fat within a lot of State and local publicly funded programs. Eliminating human error and dishonesty from a public agency's administrative processes prevents episodes of noncompliance that puts the agency in legal jeopardy.   I've told the story in past posts of the case in which one of my students went for months without a needed piece of equipment ordered by his Occupational Therapist (OT) as an accommodation for his sensory needs in the classroom, which meant he was up and out of his seat disrupting the instruction, because of an interpersonal feud between two mean old ladies who hated each other in administration. One of the mean old ladies worked at the student's local school site in the office, processing purchase requisitions and submitting them to the school district's main office to be processed into purchase orders.   Now, this was back in the day and all of this was done using paper and the district's own internal courier service, commonly referred to as “brown mail,” because most things came in those big brown manila envelopes. There was no email. If things needed to move faster than brown mail, it was done via fax. So, context.   The other mean old lady in this situation worked in the accounting office at the district offices. I'm not exactly clear on the details of why they hated each other so much, but I do recall that it had something to do with either a green bean casserole or a three-bean salad – I can't remember which – at some kind of district holiday party. Like, maybe both of them brought the same thing and it turned into a feud over whose was better, or something? I don't entirely recall the details, I just remember it was something to do with beans and a holiday party and that it was totally dumb.   The mean old lady at the district offices would sit on the purchase requisitions submitted by the mean old lady at the school site just out of spite, without any regard for the people who had submitted the requisitions to the mean old lady at the school site or any students who may have been impacted by her behaviors. The mean old lady at the school site wasn't willing to call over to the mean old lady at the district offices to find out what had happened to her requisitions, so she'd become hostile with the school site staff who would ask her where their stuff was. They became afraid to ask her where their stuff was, and just took it as a given that the average purchase would take at least 60 to 90 days before it came in.   Computers don't do any of that! As many concerns as we have about computers processing things correctly, that comes down to how they are coded. They aren't going to fight with each other over three-bean salads at a Christmas party and then undermine each other professionally to the detriment of the constituents they are being paid by the taxpayers to serve.   So, knowing that the implementation of the technology is inevitable, our job as informed voters and taxpayers is to understand what that technology needs to be able to do in order to truly perform according to the principles of democracy and the rule of law. That technology must account for how intersectionality impacts every person, whether staff, vendor, or constituent, who must participate in the execution of the government's responsibilities to the people.   This brings me to a very specific issue within special education in the State of California that has affected way too many families in a detrimental way, which is the intersectionality of the African-American experience with special education in the public schools. This is an under-researched and poorly regulated aspect of our current modern society, here in California, and as the State seeks to shore up democracy in spite of the many forces presently working to undermine it, I believe this specific instance of intersectionality particularly deserves the State's attention.   I'm speaking specifically of the long-outdated and now inappropriate Larry P. requirement. To quote the State:   "The Larry P. Case" In 1972 in the Larry P. case, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found that African American students in the San Francisco Unified School District were being placed into classes for “Educably Mentally Retarded (EMR)” students in disproportionate numbers, based on criteria that relied primarily on the results of intelligence quotient (IQ) tests that were racially and/or culturally discriminatory and not validated for the purposes for which they were being used1. In 1979, the court permanently enjoined LEAs throughout California from using standardized intelligence tests2 for (1) the identification of African American students as EMR or its substantial equivalent or (2) placement of African American students into EMR classes or classes serving substantially the same functions3. The court held that court approval would be required for the use of any standardized intelligence tests for African American students for the above purposes. The court laid out a state process for this.  The EMR category no longer exists. The court has never held hearings to determine the “substantial equivalent” of the EMR identification or placement, or whether IQ tests are appropriate for assessing African American students for identifications or placements other than the substantial equivalent of EMR. The state process to seek approval has not been invoked. Although the law on assessment has evolved, as described above, the Larry P. injunction remains in place, and the court retains jurisdiction over its enforcement. The Larry P. injunction does not apply to tests that are not considered standardized intelligence tests. Footnotes 1 Larry P. v. Riles, 343 F. Supp. 1306, 1315 (N.D. Cal. 1972). 2 The court defined a standardized intelligence test as one that result in a score purporting to measure intelligence, often described as “general intellectual functioning.”  Larry P., 495 F. Supp. 926, 931 n. 1 (N.D. Cal. 1979), affirmed in part, reversed in part, 793 F.2d 969 (9th Cir. 1986). 3 Larry P., 495 F. Supp. at 989.   Here's what everybody needs to get, and which way too many school psychologists and other special education assessors in California's school districts do not: Larry P. only applies to norm-referenced intelligence quotient (IQ) tests that result in a full-scale IQ (FSIQ) score. It doesn't apply to the Southern California Ordinal Scales of Development (SCOSD) Cognition subtest. It doesn't apply to any standardized speech/language assessment measures. It has nothing to do with OT. It has nothing to do with measuring academic achievement using standardized assessment tools.   Unless the assessment measure is designed to produce an IQ score, Larry P. does not apply. But, I've now handled a half-dozen cases in the last couple of years in which the whole reason why the students' IEPs were poorly developed was because they'd been poorly assessed by people who didn't score any standardized measures for fear of violating Larry P. because they didn't actually understand the Larry P. rules. The professional development on this issue throughout the State is atrocious.   More to the point, the State needs to invoke its process to seek approval to now use the current, modern, unbiased IQ tests in the special education process, because the assessment failures caused by poorly trained cowards who don't have the sense to go onto Google and look up the rules themselves and/or push back against administrative supervisors steering them in a non-compliant direction are causing a cataclysm of disastrous consequences at the intersection of the African-American experience and childhood disability in the State's public schools. This just feeds these kids into the gaping maw of the School-to-Prison Pipeline.   I want to take it one more step further than that, though. I want to encourage more representation of the African-American community in special education assessment. I want to see more college students of color going into school psychology, speech/language pathology, OT, assistive technology, etc., so that they can be there to advocate from an informed, expert perspective within the system for the children from their own community who are at risk of being otherwise misunderstood by people who lack the perspective necessary to appreciate the long-lasting impacts of their assessment errors.   People who don't actually understand the rules can over-interpret them in an over-abundance of caution. They will not do more than what's actually been prohibited for fear of doing something they aren't supposed to, to the point that they're not doing what they are supposed to be doing. They go from one extreme to the other. In an effort to avoid committing a State-level Larry P. violation, they commit a violation of federal law by failing to appropriately assess in all areas of suspected disability according to the applicable professional standards and the instructions of the producers of the standardized measures used.   It's currently a “from-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire” situation for the State that is wrecking lives and creating special education violations left and right. The State is setting up its public schools to fail at this particularly significant intersection of social factors, at the same time that the State is seriously considering reparations to the African-American community here in the State.   I promise you that none of the assessors I've encountered in the last few years who have been committing these Larry P. violations are actually trying to be hurtful. None of them know what they're supposed to be doing and they're making dumb errors in judgment, often under pressure from authoritarian administrators who don't know an IQ test from a roll of toilet paper.   I'm advocating, here, for both the development and implementation of enterprise-class computing technologies that will automate as much of the public sector's administrative functions as possible according to the applicable regulations, including mandated timelines, as well as for the State to request the court to reverse Larry P. so that schools are no longer enjoined against using current, valid, appropriately normed IQ tests in the assessment of African-American children in California for special education purposes. These two things matter to each other.   Larry P. is no longer a solution, it's a problem. It's not that assessors couldn't work around it; it's that they don't know how to work around it and they commit more errors trying to than anything that could possibly go wrong actually using an IQ test on an African-American student in this modern day and age. Further, the specific ecological factors that contribute to the success of students who are impacted by the intersectionality of their disabilities with other traits that can affect their social standing, such as ethnicity, need to be understood as specific data points worthy of intense administrative and policy-making examination.   As a matter of civil rights and monitoring its own internal compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, one would hope that a public education agency would want to know if particular classes of students are somehow being under-served and need more attention from the adult decision-makers involved in their educational experiences. Who is monitoring each school district's compliance with Larry P., right now? Is that the job of each district's 504 Coordinator? How is Larry P. compliance in the field such an issue, still, after all of these years and, more to the point, why is it even still a requirement after all of these years?   Analyzing data from an enterprise-class computing solution regarding intersectionality among special education students would help public education agencies recognize trends of noncompliance and programming failures. This would include rampant Larry P. violations producing shoddy assessments that result in poorly crafted Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) that fail to deliver appropriately ambitious educational benefits according to the current Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) standard pursuant to the 2017 Endrew F. Supreme Court decision.   Issues of intersectionality can be captured by competent data analysis, which can be greatly facilitated by properly coded enterprise-class computing technologies, and used to ensure that all students, pursuant to Endrew F., receive an IEP appropriately ambitious in light of their unique, individual circumstances. A properly configured system would be spitting out reports detailing the instances of noncompliance to the inboxes of the key decision-makers so they could respond as quickly as possible.   Had such a system already been implemented, the Larry P. violations I've encountered all over the State over the last couple of years would have been caught among all the others I haven't encountered and either rectified or prevented altogether by the State realizing what a colossal disaster Larry P. has become in the field and executing the process outlined by the Court to put an end to it. Were the State monitoring the right data points, it would have realized that Larry P. needed to be ended a long time ago and that it causes infinitely more problems than it solves because it forces assessors to assess African-American students differently than everyone else, which is not equal access.   Frankly, this lack of equal access is more discriminatory than using an IQ test could ever possibly be and becomes even more so when the quality of the assessments are compromised because the assessors don't know how to comply with Larry P. and they jack up their entire evaluations in the process. Jacked up evaluations lead to jacked up IEPs, which lead to the denial of educational benefits and all the consequences that these children will experience over their lifetimes as a result of being deprived of a FAPE.   The people who make these kinds of errors will be among the first to engage in victim-blaming once these students end up in the justice system, acting like it was unavoidable and inevitable, because they can't recognize or accept the degree to which they had a hand in making it happen. The people who do it on purpose hide among the people who don't know what else to do, fueling the victim-blaming, which becomes part of our current, exhausting, ridiculous, ongoing culture wars.   I would rather see Larry P. ended so that it's no longer creating confusion among assessors in the field and technology implemented that will identify when things like this are going on so they can be stopped early on. I would much rather monitor digital data as a compliance watchdog as I get older than have to go in, one kid at a time, to hold the public education system accountable to its mandates under our democracy's rule of law. So long as there is transparency in how the system operates and all the real-time data, other than anything personally identifying, is accessible to the public to be analyzed for compliance failures, technology stands to enhance the functions of democracy. But, it all comes down to how its coded.   I expect that watchdogs and advocates in the future will spend more time analyzing system-generated data than necessarily representing individual students, and that a healthier partnership between the public sector and the citizenry can evolve in which the user feedback shared with system developers and operators can be used to enhance its functions and allow each agency to serve its mandated purposes in a compliant manner that is both cost-effective and substantively effective.   The more that social and behavioral science is integrated into the policies, procedures, and applied technologies in the public sector, the more effective and efficient they will be. The more integrated the technologies among all of the public agency stakeholders, the more cohesive the communications and execution of time-sensitive tasks. I see a future in which systemic violations, such as rampant Larry P. failures, will trigger an examination of the intersectionality of disability and other social factors, such as ethnicity, on compliance and help identify when something like getting rid of Larry P. needs to happen sooner rather than later.   I see this Larry P. mess as yet another compelling argument for the implementation of enterprise-class computing technologies within public education administration. I hope the State is listening.

In Episode 3 of SPED Law with Dr. Randall and Sarah we discuss 2 case that form the foundation of Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE), one of the pillars of IDEA. First we discuss Board of Education v. Rowley (1982), then cover Endrew F. v. Douglas County (2017). Links mentioned in the episode: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/458/176 ​​https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf

Following COVID-19 school closures during the 2019-2020 school year, many school districts are faced with making determinations regarding potential compensatory education for their special education student populations.  Host Sloan Simmons discusses the concept of compensatory education and school closures with Lozano Smith special education experts Marcy Gutierrez and Collen Villarreal, including important factors for districts to consider on this subject and the latest OAH rulings on point. Show Notes & References 2:29 – FAPE obligation and distance learning 3:11 – Bd. of Ed. v. Rowley (1982) 458 U.S. 176; Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1 (2017) 580 U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 988 3:51 – Cal. Exec. Order N-26-20 (March 13, 2020) 8:35 – Compensatory education overview 10:17 – Equitable factors 15:50 – Anaheim Elementary School District v. Student (2020), OAH Case No. 2020090678 19:20 – Questions and Answers on Providing Services to Children with Disabilities During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak (March 12, 2020)   Lozano Smith's COVID-19 Resources can be found here. For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

Jen and Julie dive into the United States Supreme Court case of Endrew F. v Douglas County School District. This was a court case from 2017 that discussed the level of educational benefits school districts should provide students with disabilities as defined by Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Special Ed Files is directed by David DesRoches, and the podcast is produced by Bryan Murphy and is a production of the Quinnipiac University Podcast Studio. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode of the LEGAL ONE Podcast includes a review of the test for determining whether a school district has offered a student with disabilities a free, appropriate public education, or FAPE, in light of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District 137 S. Ct. 988. In this case, Endrew's parents sought reimbursement for private school tuition payments based on their unilateral placement of the student.  The Supreme Court ultimately 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. The court went on to state that School authorities are expected to offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions that shows the IEP is “appropriately ambitious” and reasonably calculated to enable the child to make sufficient progress. Finally, the podcast includes a discussion about how schools and parents can effectively work together to ensure a free appropriate public education is provided. https://bit.ly/3xi84AZ (View resources discussed during this episode, including available online courses.)

Attorney Jack RobinsonOn March 22, 2017 the United States Supreme Court in the case of Endrew F. v Douglas County School District ruled that a school district's IEP must provide a child with a disability more than just a de minimis, or minimal, educational benefit. In a 16-page decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, wrote for a unanimous court ruling that School Districts must offer individualized education programs that are “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances.” In this episode, we sit down and talk with the attorney that represented the parents of Endrew F ("Drew") and argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court and won -- Attorney Jack Robinson!http://www.sprlaw.net/team/jack-d-robinson/

Welcome to Dyslexia Coffee Talk with the Dyslexia Initiative. Grab your coffee and join us for a conversation. We are so excited to have you join us. Sit back as we discusses tech, being diagnosed with dyslexia as an adult, and that inclusion in the workplace will create diversity once employees feel that they are safe to be themselves. Host: Ashley Roberts

Attorney Jack D. Robinson discusses his landmark Supreme Court case, Endrew F. The Supreme Court case that mandated school districts provide a proper and robust free appropriate public education (FAPE), to children under IDEA. Mr. Robinson is co-founder and current partner at Spies, Powers & Robinson. One of his main law focus areas is on Special Education and Disability Law. Other notable cases include Matthews v Douglas City. Mr. Robinson is currently one of Denver's top lawyers for 2020. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/StateofEducation/support

Steven Alizio interprets the landmark Special Education Case, Endrew F., a unanimous Supreme Court opinion from 2017 establishing higher expectations for all students, including those with cognitive disabilities. This reinterpretation of the critical free appropriate public education (FAPE) requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is good news for all who care about higher achievement for our students. Steve Alizio is a special education attorney in private practice and former INCLUDEnyc Junior Board member. He taught in a public high school on Long Island for 7 years before earning his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School.

Did you know that the IQ test is one way to understand the potential for growth? Today is part two of coming back from the COPAA Conference. The need for knowing what a child’s potential for growth will be and how we determine that can be found one way - by your IQ. Every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives. Not only do you need goals, but you need to know all the information before the goals are met. Join us today to discover how current testing levels help drive future goals.   Show Highlights: A quick reminder of part one - go back and listen if you haven’t How court cases could take many years Knowing who is in the lower courts and how that is important Making sure all children have a chance in school The practical aspect of attorneys in other areas helping towards great goals Workshops on the Endrew F case What the law says about an ambitious goal Progress is more important than the end goal Goals drive services, and services drive placement and you need present testing levels  to get to all possible services Certain terminology to be used at IEP meetings   Resources Mentioned in the Show: Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every Tuesday. If you enjoyed this episode and believe in our message, then please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, or Google Play. It helps other listeners find this show. Be sure to connect with us and reach out with any questions/concerns: Facebook Instagram Twitter IEP website This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matters, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

There is much conversation surrounding dyslexia and what it is exactly. In this episode, we tackle the subject of dyslexia and how laws that have recently emerged are approaching this disability in academic settings. Joining us today is law student and IEP advocate, Victoria Lucero For full show transcript, visit our site here.  What You'll Learn in This Episode: What is the definition of dyslexia? Why dyslexia appears so contradictory in the way it appears in children What caused the push for new dyslexia laws and why many of the “laws” are actually only guidelines What type of assessments can parents request when it comes to their children's dyslexia needs How can reading intervention programs help Why consistency is key when it comes to reading intervention programs The importance of helping teachers recognize when a child has dyslexia as opposed to believing the child is lazy or has another issues How can a special education lawyer help when there is a medical diagnosis of dyslexia How can educators ask of their administration to receive training to better serve students with dyslexia Resources Mentioned: Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Senate Resolution 576 California Education Code Section 56335 CA Ed Code Section 33308.5 Reading programs – https://www.orton-gillingham.com/ (Orton-Gillingham ) and https://www.wilsonlanguage.com/ (Wilson Language Training ) Assembly Bill 1369 Endrew F. Supreme Court case Office of Special Education Policy Letters (OSEP) https://dyslexiaida.org/ (International Dyslexia Association) https://effectivereading.org/ (The Center for Effective Reading Instruction) Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every Tuesday. If you enjoyed this episode and believe in our message, then please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, or https://play.google.com/music/listen#/ps/I23ctmblttqsbc4kagaccwm453a ( Google Play.) It helps other listeners find this show. Be sure to connect with us and reach out with any questions/concerns: https://www.facebook.com/IEPcalifornia/ (Facebook) https://www.instagram.com/iepcalifornia/ (Instagram) https://twitter.com/iepcalifornia (Twitter) http://www.iepcalifornia.org (IEP website) This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matters, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

On March 22, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, a dispute involving the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which in exchange for federal funding requires that states provide a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) to disabled children by means of a tailored “individualized education program” (IEP). In its 1982 decision Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester County. v. Rowley (Rowley), the Supreme Court indicated that the FAPE requirement is satisfied when an IEP is “reasonably calculated to enable the [disabled] child to receive educational benefits.” Endrew F. is a student with autism who received annual IEPs from the Douglas County School District from preschool through the fourth grade. At that point, however, his parents felt his progress to be stagnating, and when the school district proposed a similar IEP for the fifth grade, Endrew’s parents moved him to a specialized private school where he made significant progress. School district officials thereafter presented Endrew’s parents with a revised IEP, but the parents considered it little better than the previous version. The parents sought reimbursement of private school tuition costs by filing an IDEA complaint with the Colorado Department of Education. Their claim was denied, however, and the denial was affirmed by both a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit concluded that under Rowley, the FAPE requirement was satisfied so long as the IEP conferred more than a minimal educational benefit. By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Tenth Circuit and remanded the case. Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Roberts indicated 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,” a more demanding standard than the Tenth Circuit’s de minimis one. The Court then remanded the case for further proceedings under the corrected standard. To discuss the case, we have Daniel Woodring, principal at Woodring Law Firm.

On March 22, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, a dispute involving the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which in exchange for federal funding requires that states provide a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) to disabled children by means of a tailored “individualized education program” (IEP). In its 1982 decision Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester County. v. Rowley (Rowley), the Supreme Court indicated that the FAPE requirement is satisfied when an IEP is “reasonably calculated to enable the [disabled] child to receive educational benefits.” Endrew F. is a student with autism who received annual IEPs from the Douglas County School District from preschool through the fourth grade. At that point, however, his parents felt his progress to be stagnating, and when the school district proposed a similar IEP for the fifth grade, Endrew’s parents moved him to a specialized private school where he made significant progress. School district officials thereafter presented Endrew’s parents with a revised IEP, but the parents considered it little better than the previous version. The parents sought reimbursement of private school tuition costs by filing an IDEA complaint with the Colorado Department of Education. Their claim was denied, however, and the denial was affirmed by both a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit concluded that under Rowley, the FAPE requirement was satisfied so long as the IEP conferred more than a minimal educational benefit. By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Tenth Circuit and remanded the case. Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Roberts indicated 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,” a more demanding standard than the Tenth Circuit’s de minimis one. The Court then remanded the case for further proceedings under the corrected standard. To discuss the case, we have Daniel Woodring, principal at Woodring Law Firm.

Today's episode continues our look at appellate jurisprudence, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, and the philosophy of originalism that Andrew continues to insist is so extreme ast o be disqualifying. First, our much-beloved segment "Are You A Cop?" returns in triumphant fashion with an examination of a claim being raised by many Trump supporters; namely, that the 9th Circuit is "the most reversed appellate court in the country" with a "90% reversal rate."  Is this claim true?  (No.) In the main segment, we take a look at the Supreme Court's just-released opinion in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District.  Is this a "unanimous reversal" of Gorsuch on appeal while Gorsuch's nomination remains pending??  As usual, we correct the news sources that got this story wrong and explain its significance to you. Next, we answer a question/comment from Ed Brayton, author of the "Dispatches From The Culture Wars" blog, who has a different take on originalism. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #16 about apparent authority.   Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew and Thomas were guests on Eiynah's podcast, Polite Conversations, Panel Discussion #6 talking about liberals vs. conservatives on free speech.  Give it a listen! Show Notes & Links This Politifact Article debunks the claim that the 9th Circuit is the "most reversed" appellate court. This is the text of the Endrew F v. Douglas County School Dist. opinion just issued by the Supreme Court. And here is the Endrew F opinion from the 10th Circuit (not authored by Gorsuch) that was reversed. Finally, this is the Luke P decision that was by Gorsuch discussed in the episode. And by contrast, this is Urban v. Jefferson County School Dist., 89 F.3d 720 (1996), which you can read for yourself and see that Gorsuch deliberately misconstrued. You can read Ed Brayton's excellent blog, Dispatches From The Culture Wars, by clicking here. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

On January 11, 2017 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the most important special education case in thirty-five years, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. At issue was the level of services federal law requires school districts to provide students with disabilities. On this week's episode of the podcast, Marty West talks with Josh Dunn about the case. His new article on the Endrew F. case is available at http://educationnext.org/special-education-standards-supreme-court-raises-level-benefit-endrew-f-v-douglas-county/

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE-1 | 01/11/17 | Docket #: 15-827

In the lead-up to November’s presidential election, Donald Trump released a list of 21 potential Supreme Court nominees in what many saw as an effort to mollify conservatives who tend to worry about these sorts of things. Now, that list has reportedly been narrowed to eight. On this episode, we sit down with William Jay, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, to discuss Scalia’s possible successors. We also speak with Jack Robinson, a lawyer for the special-needs student at the center of Endrew F. v Douglas City School District. The case is scheduled for argument at the Supreme Court next week, and Robinson explains why special-education advocates are watching the case so closely. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here. Amicus is brought to you by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses for a fraction of the price. Get $50 toward any mattress purchase by going to Casper.com/amicus and using the promo code Amicus. And by the Great Courses Plus, a video learning service that offers lectures on all kinds of topics. Get the first full month FREE when you sign up by going to TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here. Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the lead-up to November’s presidential election, Donald Trump released a list of 21 potential Supreme Court nominees in what many saw as an effort to mollify conservatives who tend to worry about these sorts of things. Now, that list has reportedly been narrowed to eight. On this episode, we sit down with William Jay, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, to discuss Scalia’s possible successors. We also speak with Jack Robinson, a lawyer for the special-needs student at the center of Endrew F. v Douglas City School District. The case is scheduled for argument at the Supreme Court next week, and Robinson explains why special-education advocates are watching the case so closely. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here. Amicus is brought to you by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses for a fraction of the price. Get $50 toward any mattress purchase by going to Casper.com/amicus and using the promo code Amicus. And by the Great Courses Plus, a video learning service that offers lectures on all kinds of topics. Get the first full month FREE when you sign up by going to TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here. Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices