“Hardly Be Said to Offer An Education at All”: Endrew and its Impact on Special Education Mediation

Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 2018 | Issue 2 Article 17 2018 “Hardly Be Said to Offer An Education at All”: Endrew and its Impact on Special Education Mediation Grant Simon Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons Recommended Citation Grant Simon, “Hardly Be Said to Offer An Education at All”: Endrew and its Impact on Special Education Mediation, 2018 J. Disp. Resol. (2018) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2018/iss2/17 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Dispute Resolution by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. Simon: “Hardly Be Said to Offer An Education at All”: Endrew and its Imp “Hardly Be Said to Offer An Education at All”: Endrew and its Impact on Special Education Mediation GRANT SIMON * I. INTRODUCTION As the standards for special education students in America rise, the need to handle the resulting disputes arises as well. Special education disputes are a common yet emotional process for all parties involved. Such disputes can result in a split between the family and the school district- a split that can potentially leave negative consequences on the student. In 1975, Congress, realizing the personal nature and prevalence of special education issues, passed what would become the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).1 The IDEA offers states federal funds to assist in educating children with disabilities.2 This Act also authorizes the child’s parents the right to make use of mediation for resolving these disputes.3 This alternative dispute resolution process for special education claims solves thousands of claims each year without having to pursue further litigation.4 However, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, the Court’s new and more demanding standard of what a child’s educational goals must be could potentially change the role of mediation in special education disputes. This Case Note discusses the recent Supreme Court decision in Endrew.5 The Case Note then will address the potential impact the Court’s ruling could have on the future role of mediation in special education. Finally, this Case Note will also address the potential procedural changes school districts may have to make when considering the new Endrew standard. * B.A. Truman State University 2015, J.D. University of Missouri 2019. I am incredibly grateful to Professor James Levin for his feedback and guidance with this Comment. I would also like to thank the editorial staff of the Journal of Dispute Resolution for the time spent editing this Comment. Finally, I would like to thank my mother, Kathy McCarthy, for being my most influential guidance and sparking my interest in special education topics. 1. 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2010). 2. See 20 U. S. C. §1400 (2010); see also Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, 548 U. S. 291, 295 (2006). 3. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e) (2004). 4. Carolyn Thompson, Following Supreme Court ruling, more special education fights seen coming, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (May 17, 2010), http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Archives/2017/05/10/Special-ed-funding-5-10-17. 5. Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017). Published by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository, 2018 1 Journal of Dispute Resolution, Vol. 2018, Iss. 2 [2018], Art. 17 134 JOURNAL OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 2018 II. FACTS AND HOLDING Petitioner Endrew F. (“Endrew”) was a child with autism enrolled in respondent Douglas County Colorado School District (“School District”) from preschool through fourth grade.6 During this time, Endrew was enrolled in special education courses with an Individual Educational Plan (“IEP”)7 created by School District employees.8 By the time Endrew reached the fourth grade, his parents believed that his academic progress had stalled.9 For evidence of this fear, Endrew’s parents noted that Endrew still exhibited behaviors that negatively impacted his ability to learn in the classroom.10 For example, Endrew would scream in class, climb over furniture and other students, and occasionally run away from school.11 He was also afflicted by severe fears of common everyday occurrences such as flies, spills, and public restrooms.12 However, despite Endrew’s parents concern about his progress stalling, Endrew’s IEP remained largely unchanged by carrying over the same basic goals and objectives from one year to the next.13 School District staff indicated that these goals were being carried over because Endrew was failing to make meaningful progress toward these goals.14 When the School District proposed a fifth grade IEP that still failed to adjust Endrew’s goals, Endrew’s parents removed him from public school and enrolled him in a specialized private school for children with autism.15 At this school, Endrew made significant educational progress rapidly.16 Concurrently, while Endrew was enrolled at his new private school, School District representatives approached Endrew’s parents with a new fifth grade IEP.17 Endrew’s parents considered this plan as inadequate as the original IEP, and, pursuant to statute, sought reimbursement for his private school tuition by filing an IDEA complaint with the Colorado Department of Education.18 To succeed on their complaint, Endrew’s parents had to show that the School District did not provide their son a Free and Appropriate Public Education 6. Id. at 991. 7. The IEP is “the centerpiece of the statute’s education delivery system for disabled children” that identifies the unique needs a particular child needs to receive an adequate education. See Honig v. Doe, 484 U. S. 305, 311, (1988); see also Endrew, 137 S. Ct. 988 (noting that the IEP “is the means by which special education and related services are tailored to the unique needs of a particular child”). 8. Endrew, 137 S. Ct. at 991. 9. Id. 10. Id. at 996. 11. Id. 12. Id. 13. Id. 14. Endrew, 137 S. Ct. at 996. 15. Id. 16. Id. at 997. 17. Id. 18. Id. https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2018/iss2/17 2 Simon: “Hardly Be Said to Offer An Education at All”: Endrew and its Imp No. 2] Special Education Mediation 135 (“FAPE”)19 as required by IDEA prior to his enrollment at the private school.20 Endrew’s parents alleged that the final IEP proposed by the School District did not meet the required legal standard of being “reasonably calculated” to enable Endrew to receive his required educational benefits.21 Therefore, Endrew’s parents argued that Endrew had been denied a FAPE.22 The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied relief, and Endrew’s parents appealed to the federal district court.23 The district court, giving due weight to the ALJ’s decisio (...truncated)