Criminal Law

Criminal Law

Amber L Kolm

CJA-305

2/27/17

Roderick Shelton

Criminal Law

Looking at several different Supreme Court cases, there is one that was very intriguing. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. This particular case deals with a fifteen-year-old, autistic boy. Endrew (Drew) was diagnosed with ASD, autistic spectrum disorder when he was younger. During his formative years, the years of kindergarten thru fourth grade, Drew attended a public school. While spending these years in the public school system Drew was increasingly showing less and less progress. In fact, he was back-sliding academically. Drew was having more and more behavior issues that would cause his ability to learn to become impaired. The school placed Drew on an IEP (Individual Education Plan) for his behaviors, thinking that this would simply solve the problem. Alas, this did not solve the problem; not even close. Drew continued to suffer in his academic endeavors.

At the beginning of his fifth grade year, Drew’s parents decided to pull him out of public school and enroll him in a private school. They just could not handle the disruption and chaos any longer. From the very beginning the private school developed a behavior intervention plan (BIP) that helped them to assess Drew’s needs; as well as his strengths. It was not long after this BIP was incorporated into his academic life that Drew began to flourish. His behaviors and needs were finally being met.

Stressed out and appalled by the lack of concern that the public school system had shown Drew’s parents filed a suit against the school district to have them reimburse the tuition fees that they were paying for the private school. The way that they saw it; had the public school system provided the education and met the needs that Drew clearly had, they would not have been forced to remove him and place him in the private school system.

Denver’s Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, along with lower courts, decided that all that the school district had to do was provide the minimal requirements for his needs and education. Though Drew was not meeting any of his educational goals, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that school district was not at fault and did not order the district to reimburse the tuition fees. When the judgment came in, Drew’s parents made the decision to challenge the ruling of the Supreme Court.

When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was initiated it was meant to make sure that the children with disabilities were getting the proper level of education. The IDEA stipulates that any school that receives federal funding must provide free appropriate public education (FAPE) to any child that has disabilities. According to Board of Education v. Rowley, a case from 1982, the Supreme Court decided that the FAPE requirement is only that the school district provide children with disabilities, that are meeting the minimum educational expectations, with “some” educational benefit. This ruling allowed the lower court systems to use the “Rowley” standard as a way of denying children with disabilities, and their families, to receive the services and education that they deserve.

...