
Supreme Court sets higher bar for education of students with disabilities - daegloe
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-sets-higher-bar-for-education-of-students-with-disabilities/2017/03/22/fcb7bc62-0f16-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html
======
saycheese
>> "His parents pulled him out of public school after his behavior
deteriorated dramatically and he made what they said was almost no academic
progress. They placed him in private school, where he made rapid progress, and
they sought reimbursement for tuition. They are entitled to that reimbursement
if they can prove that the public school failed to provide a free appropriate
public education under federal law."

Seems like if this is the case for children with special education needs it
should apply to all children given how poor the "free" educational system is
in many areas in the US.

~~~
stinkytaco
You've just waded into the voucher debate, congratulations.

The argument against this is that if you reimburse private school tuition, you
divert money from public schools, thus exacerbating the problem. You also
divert money from public schools for no guarantee of better results. This kid
did better, but would another? And once you divert public money to private
schools, are they obligated to meet the same academic standards?

On the other hand, the public schools are bad in places, and it's hard to
argue that kids should be the ones in the middle, getting worse results while
we sort out the schools.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _if you reimburse private school tuition, you divert money from public
> schools, thus exacerbating the problem_

The total amount of funding for schools hasn't changed. One could inversely
argue public-school funding is bad because it reduces money for private
schools. Both arguments are tautological. They first assume their system is
better, say the other competes for their money, and thusly conclude that
funding for their better system should be preserved. (This is not an argument
for or against charter schools. I'm just saying the "depletion" argument is
silly.)

> _You also divert money from public schools for no guarantee of better
> results_

When properly done, charter schools can outperform public schools [1].
Otherwise, the evidence is mixed. I'd thus argue defaulting to the _status
quo_. Teachers argue the _status quo_ is state education while conservatives
argue it's parent choice.

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/charter-school-
perf...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/charter-school-performance-
study_n_3493023.html)

~~~
jrm5100
To add to your points, a very important consideration is that charter schools
can game the metrics by forcing out students who aren't performing well, while
public schools can't turn anyone away. This may be why they seem to improve
test scores without making any actual difference [1].

Public schools can use charters to game metrics themselves too [2].

[1] [http://www.nber.org/papers/w22502](http://www.nber.org/papers/w22502)

[2] [https://www.propublica.org/article/alternative-education-
usi...](https://www.propublica.org/article/alternative-education-using-
charter-schools-hide-dropouts-and-game-system)

------
Pulcinella
I've seen some misunderstandings in this thread. This ruling doesn't create a
voucher system. The Supreme Court's ruling sets the bar that a public school
has to met in the education of a special education student. If the school does
not meet this bar, the guardians of the student can seek reimbursement of
private school tuition.

The reason this doesn't apply to all students is because it's specifically
about federal legislation that deals with disabled students, IDEA.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilitie...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act)

Edit:See also, FAPE:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Appropriate_Public_Educ...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Appropriate_Public_Education)

Edit: Here is the decision:
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf)

~~~
randomgyatwork
My parents pulled me out of public school and sent me to a private school that
could teach me given my special needs. Best decision for everyone, sucks
though that they had to pay my tuition in addition to all the taxes.

------
mjevans
Does such a high bar also have to be present for those students whom are at
the top of their grade in a given subject?

I have often wondered how different my life would be if public school were
more like college. A set of known curriculum which might be consumed in any
order in which dependencies were fulfilled.

Yet further, the arbitrary length of a semester should be removed. It should
be entirely work unit based.

~~~
Pulcinella
It's slow, but high schools are generally moving to this model. The school I
teach at does this. You are required to have a certain number of and type of
credits but you have freedom in how you do this. For example, you are required
to take biology, but your other science credits could be forensics, anatomy
and physiology, and astronomy. In the past everyone would have to take
biology, chemistry, and physics with no options until their senior year.

Contact your state legislature.

------
mrybczyn
So I guess we'll see more of this? :

2007: [https://www.cnet.com/news/uc-berkeley-first-to-post-full-
lec...](https://www.cnet.com/news/uc-berkeley-first-to-post-full-lectures-to-
youtube/)

2017: [http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/266033/obama-civil-
rights-...](http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/266033/obama-civil-rights-
victory-berkeley-takes-down-daniel-greenfield)

~~~
danso
The ADA is a law that was passed during the first Bush administration, not a
"product" of Obama's DOJ other than the expectation that the DOJ enforce the
laws of the United States.

~~~
alphapapa
Do you remember the HN story about the DoJ letter to UCB? Did you read the
letter? There is significant leeway in which cases the DoJ pursues, and in how
the DoJ pursues and investigates cases. In no way was the DoJ's finding (i.e.
threat of legal action, fines, etc.) a given. It also seems obvious that UCB
could have claimed that to address the complaint would have been cost-
prohibitive (which the DoJ letter listed as a possible defense), yet they
didn't attempt to do so.

Also, this action was only pursued after two professors at a university for
the deaf filed an official complaint with the DoJ. Isn't it bizarre that two
professors at an institute of higher-learning filed a complaint to have
educational resources, which were freely available to the entire world,
deleted?

> not a "product" of Obama's DOJ other than the expectation that the DOJ
> enforce the laws of the United States.

A bizarre statement, considering how the Obama administration and DoJ simply
declined to enforce laws they didn't like.

~~~
danso
> _Also, this action was only pursued after two professors at a university for
> the deaf filed an official complaint with the DoJ. Isn 't it bizarre that
> two professors at an institute of higher-learning filed a complaint to have
> educational resources, which were freely available to the entire world,
> deleted?_

No, it is not bizarre that lawyers at a university for the deaf, precisely the
population that one expects to notice this infraction and to also have the
monetary resources to file a complaint, were the ones who filed a complaint.
That's often how lawsuits come about.

Yes, the DoJ is all about priorities. Obama's administration put more
resources into its civil rights division compared to the Bush (GWB) era, which
looked more into voter fraud among other issues. That other administrations
may have let the law go unenforced does not mean that the law should or can be
ignored when litigants pursue a complaint.

And yes, I have read the other HN threads on this and have occasionally chimed
in the discussion [0]. The issue is a lot more nuanced than "THANKS OBAMA
SJWs". But it's a path that the United States as a whole decided to walk down
in 1990, in bipartisan fashion, when it passed the sweeping American
Disabilities Act. The ADA has had massive costs for businesses and
organizations in the past decades:
[http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch2.htm](http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch2.htm)

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856)

~~~
alphapapa
> No, it is not bizarre that lawyers at a university for the deaf, precisely
> the population that one expects to notice this infraction and to also have
> the monetary resources to file a complaint, were the ones who filed a
> complaint. That's often how lawsuits come about.

Sorry if I was unclear. I meant how ironic it is for people who have devoted
their lives to educating others to file a complaint causing freely available
educational resources to be destroyed.

~~~
danso
That's one irony to note. Another irony worth noting is that a premier
publicly-funded university, in the U.S. state that is among the most proactive
in enforcing ADA regulations, expended taxpayer-funded resources to produce
educational videos that did not meet ADA regulations.

Those educational resources may have been "freely available" because they were
posted on YouTube, but the folks who did the work of curating, editing, and
producing those resources for YouTube are paid with public funds, and are thus
obligated to follow the rules of ADA. If "well at least it's better than
nothing" is the excuse for deprioritizing access to these resources, then the
ADA's ability to protect the disenfranchised becomes effectively meaningless.

------
mrfusion
I'm confused. Why do you have to be disabled for this ruling to apply?

Couldn't anyone getting an inadequate public education sue under this?

~~~
Pulcinella
No because this has to do with the rights guaranteed to a disable student by
the Rehabilitation Act and IDEA.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Appropriate_Public_Educ...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Appropriate_Public_Education)

------
tlow
Can someone please explain the relationship between the linked article and the
headline. How has the supreme court set the educational bar higher for
students with disabilities and how will this impact public education? Will
there be immediate effects?

~~~
Pulcinella
Federal law requires that a public school provide a free and appropriate
education for students with disabilities. If the school does not, then the
parents of the student can place their child into a private school and the
public school is required to reimburse the parents for failing to meet their
legal obligations.

There was a lawsuit over this concerning what level of education the public
school must provide in order to meet their legal obligation.

The appeals court set the bar really low. It seems the student basically just
had to be passed from grade level to grade level if I am understanding the
situation correctly.

The Supreme Court said, no the public school actually has to set appropriate
challenges and goals for the disabled student and try to meet those goals. The
school has to do this even if the disabled student cannot be placed in the
mainstream education classes.

~~~
tlow
Right, isn't the term "reasonable accommodations" from ADA language?

I'm still at a bit of a loss as to the functional impact. I understand the
monetary argument in the first paragraph, there are similar laws pertaining to
educational material funding and accessibility such as CA EDU 60119[1] which
requires access to all students all primary education materials BOTH at home
and in the classroom.

But I'm still struggling to understand how this will functionally change
anything? I guess I'm wondering if there is a measurable mandate for anything
other than what could hypothetically be "superficial change" to accommodate
the language of the supreme court.

[]1[http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/textedcod60119.asp](http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/textedcod60119.asp)

------
3JPLW
It's hard to ignore the timing. Why release this unanimous decision against a
Gorsuch ruling now?

~~~
mrfusion
I'm not following. Who benefits from that?

~~~
3JPLW
I'm only a casual observer of the court, so corrections here are very welcome.
As I've seen, many rulings tend to cluster around the end of the session
(June). Decisions from this term can be published at any point between now and
then.

I suppose withholding an obviously short and easy 8-0 decision until after the
hearings would be just as political. But to announce the ruling now, during
the last day of the committee confirmation hearing, seems extremely political
and like an indictment against Gorsuch.

~~~
hardolaf
Or it's not political and Gorsuch is telling the truth that he was bound by
circuit precedent which he was.

~~~
DannyBee
he definitely was.

