Little was said in the news yesterday about the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in a case involving a student with autism. In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, the student’s family asserted that their son did not receive a free and adequate public education (FAPE) from the Douglas County School District in Colorado. The Court agreed with Endrew’s family and reversed a lower-court ruling that found Douglas County Schools had provided education services that met the standards required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
When the story did appear, it was the reversal—not the reason for the ruling itself—that the media remarked upon. Why? Because while the Court was deciding the case, the Senate was hearing testimony from Judge Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice, and Gorsuch was part of the three-judge panel that had originally decided the case in the 10th Circuit Court in Denver in 2008. Essentially, the Court Gorsuch aspires to serve on unanimously disagreed with his written opinion, finding that the FAPE standard the 10th Circuit had established as acceptable was, in fact, too low.
The Supreme Court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, states, "It cannot be right that the IDEA generally contemplates grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who are fully integrated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for children who are not.”
Taking the potential blow to Gorsuch’s legal reputation out of the equation, there are two elements of this news story that should be of interest to educators. One, the rights of millions of children with disabilities were defended and likely enhanced yesterday. That should be cause for celebration. Children like Endrew and their families now have more leverage with which to advocate for services. Schools, too, will be incentivized to grow and innovate.
“We expect this unanimous decision to be transformative in the lives of students with disabilities,” said Denise Marshall, executive director of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates. “Today the (Supreme Court) affirmed what we know to be the promise of the IDEA.”
The second remarkable point related to this decision is how little the nation seemed to care, except insomuch as it happened to interact with a splashy political moment—Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing. This is cause for concern but, sadly, not surprising. Children with disabilities are some of the most invisible people in society. They are young, they are widely viewed through a deficit lens, and they may have health or behavior issues that challenge systems that privilege healthy and able-bodied people. They often face disproportionate and more punitive discipline in schools. And if they also happen to be black or brown or LGBT or undocumented or belong to any other marginalized identity group, they are also more likely to experience unequal treatment at the hands of medical staff, educators, caregivers and law enforcement agents who labor under implicit biases.
The imbalance of media attention to how this decision will or won’t affect Gorsuch versus the impact it will have on the lives of millions of children is a textbook illustration of our national tendency to fetishize power and privilege and to overlook the intersectional identities and concerns of the most vulnerable individuals. We tell our students to read between the lines and look for the voices that are not represented. Endrew's case is a prime example of why we as educators—not to mention as concerned citizens and human beings—need to do the same.
van der Valk is the deputy director for Teaching Tolerance.
0 COMMENTS