sade096

The readers of this blog are very smart. I could write on this topic for many days, but here is a very clear recent example: We recently ran a post on OSEP non-regulatory guidance concerning the meaning of the Endrew F Supreme Court decision. One of our smart readers called to my attention that the OSEP guidance provides the following for Q & A 17: "17. How does the Endrew F. decision impact placement decisions?  Consistent with the decision in Endrew F., the Department continues to recognize that it is essential to make individualized determinations about what constitutes appropriate instruction and services for each child with a disability and the placement in which that instruction and those services can be provided to the child. There is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to educating children with disabilities. Rather, placement decisions must be individualized and made consistent with a child’s IEP. We note that placement in regular classes may not be the least restrict...

The federal Office of Special Education Programs issued regulatory guidance today on the meaning and implications of the Endrew F decision by SCOTUS. The document is in question and answer format. There are twenty questions and answers. {Suggestion for new name: 20 Questions About Endrew!} To whet your appetite, here are two of my favorites: 15. What actions should IEP Teams take if a child is not making progress at the level the IEP Team expected? An IEP is not a guarantee of a specific educational or functional result for a child with a disability. However, the IDEA does provide for revisiting the IEP if the expected progress is not occurring. This is particularly important because of the Court’s decision in Endrew F., which clarifies that the standard for determining whether an IEP is sufficient to provide FAPE is whether the child is offered an IEP reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress that is appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances. At least once a ...