In the wake of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, school districts are tasked with developing substantively appropriate Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) that will stand up to the court’s heightened scrutiny. The only clear guidance provided from the court regarding how to meet this heightened standard is that an IEP must allow a child to make progress that is appropriate in light of his or her unique circumstances. However, a recent decision from the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, A.G. and J.G. ex. rel. J.G. v. Board of Educ. of the Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., may shed some light for school districts regarding what the courts view as “progress.” The New York federal court found that the school district’s IEP met the appropriate progress standard when it was reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits that were appropriate in light of the student’s circumstances. Specifically, the court looked to whether the school’s programs were tailored to meet the student’s identified needs in decoding, encoding, reading and writing. The student was provided services for dyslexia and ADHD, including the use of a resource room to work on the student’s reading and writing, and during the time when the student was integrated in a regular classroom, the school provided a special education teacher to provide the student a level of support based on the goals in the IEP. The court focused on several factors, including progress reports that showed that the student met his annual goals, the student’s overall performance at his grade level, and whether the program was tailored to meet those identified needs. The court found in favor of the school district that the IEP was reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits that were appropriate in light of his circumstances. While we saw the Supreme Court take a broad stance on the heightened scrutiny of IEPs developed by school districts, the A.G. and J.G. ex. rel. J.G. v. Board of Educ. of the Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. decision gave us a look at ways school districts can make sure they are in compliance.
Did a Lower Court Throw Schools an IEP Life Raft?
RELATED ARTICLES
SCOTUS Favors Employers’ Religious Liberties Over Employee Rights
July 9, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Employment Discrimination, Supreme Court Watch
No Right, Just Rules: Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Steakhouse Managers’ Claims
October 3, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Fair Labor Standards Act
Agreement to Arbitrate Acknowledged, Not Accepted, Eighth Circuit Says
July 17, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, High Stakes Employment Issues, Fair Labor Standards Act, Employment Lessons
Divided SCOTUS Affirms Auer Deference to Agencies’ Interpretations
July 3, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Supreme Court Watch
Misidentification of Employer in Discrimination Charge Not Enough for Dismissal
June 14, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Employment Discrimination
SCOTUS Favors Employers’ Religious Liberties Over Employee Rights
July 9, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Employment Discrimination, Supreme Court Watch
No Right, Just Rules: Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Steakhouse Managers’ Claims
October 3, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Fair Labor Standards Act
Agreement to Arbitrate Acknowledged, Not Accepted, Eighth Circuit Says
July 17, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, High Stakes Employment Issues, Fair Labor Standards Act, Employment Lessons
Divided SCOTUS Affirms Auer Deference to Agencies’ Interpretations
July 3, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Supreme Court Watch
Misidentification of Employer in Discrimination Charge Not Enough for Dismissal
June 14, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Employment Discrimination
Supreme Court Holds Title VII Charge-Filing Is Mandatory but Not Jurisdictional
June 7, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Supreme Court Watch
Will There Be An Epic Backlash?
June 27, 2018 | Fair Labor Standards Act, Supreme Court Watch, Currents - Employment Law
Supreme Court Says No To Repeat Class Actions After Statute Of Limitations
June 14, 2018 | Employment Lessons, Supreme Court Watch, Currents - Employment Law
U.S. Supreme Court is Asked to Answer the Question: What Do You Mean by ‘Sex’?
September 11, 2017 | Employment Discrimination, Workplace Culture and Conduct, Currents - Employment Law
Update on Trump’s Line-Up for DOL and Supreme Court
March 28, 2017 | Employment Lessons, Currents - Employment Law
Supreme Court Nominee Gorsuch Receives ABA’s Highest Rating
March 10, 2017 | Supreme Court Watch, Currents - Employment Law
Transgender Bathroom Case Sent Back to Lower Courts by Supreme Court
March 8, 2017 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
Fifth Circuit Triples Down on the Legality of Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements
August 15, 2016 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
Who Knew? U.S. Supreme Court Justices Offer Employment Tips
February 26, 2015 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
Supreme Court Examines “Supervisor” Definition In Bias Suits
November 27, 2012 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
On The Radar: Supreme Court Set to Resolve Circuit Split as to Definition of Supervisor Under Title VII
October 24, 2012 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
Supreme Court's Ruling on Healthcare Impacts Employers
June 29, 2012 | Employee Health Issues, Currents - Employment Law
U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Employment Provision in Arizona Immigration Law
June 27, 2012 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
Supreme Court Issues Long-Awaited Decision in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
June 18, 2012 | Traditional Labor, Currents - Employment Law
RELATED PRACTICE AREAS
Subscribe
Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.
View Subscription Center