The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled an Arizona school district can move an elementary student with Down syndrome to a public school outside his neighborhood. The student would receive an additional 20 minutes of Specially Designed Instruction (SDI) in an “academic SCILLS classroom” at this new school.
The Appeals Court decided that the district’s decision to move the student was a change of location, not a change of placement. The court quoted the recent Supreme Court Case, Endrew F., to argue that the student would make more meaningful progress in the special class at the new school.
Read Related Post: How School Districts Are Using a Supreme Court Case Against Students with Down Syndrome
The student’s parents argued against the additional 20 service minutes, stating that it would mean less time in the general education classroom. But the Ninth Circuit judges quoted Endrew F.: “even when the other factors weigh in favor of mainstreaming, the student’s academic needs ‘weigh most heavily against a mainstream environment.'”
You can read the decision for R.M. v. Gilbert Unified School District in it’s entirety here.
There is one piece of good news out of this decision: It’s NOT PRECEDENT! The 9th District did cite that their decision in R.M. v. Gilbert Unified School District is not precedent, except when relevant under the doctrine of law of the case itself. This is good news: other districts can’t use this case to argue for a similar move. The student’s family has yet to make a decision about appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Still, the decision is detrimental to our community. After 40 years of research touting the benefits of inclusion on all children, society still believes children with intellectual disabilities should be educated separately. Not one evidence-based research study, since studies began on the topic, have shown more benefit for students in a special class. Still we fight the perception that “special” and “separate” will lead to more “meaningful benefit” for our children.
Read Related Post: 7 Research Studies You Can Use at Your Next IEP Meeting to Win the Fight for Inclusion
School districts should be focused on changing the general education environment to benefit all students through Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and diverse learner training for all teachers. Instead, districts are using the same old model of segregation that’s leads to a 50% graduation rate for all students on IEPs (much higher for students with significant disabilities), and an 80% unemployment rate for people with disabilities.
This decision is a sad statement on how so many people just don’t understand the benefits of inclusion. Taking this child out of his home school for an additional 20 minutes of specialuzed instruction is ridiculous.
I have indicated to you and to other social media sites that I will be posting a statement about the case, as counsel, after parents decide their next steps. I must continue to correct inaccurate postings – the District was guilty of many things but they were not proposing to send him to a life skills class. Please wait until I have a fair chance to consult with parents and I promise that I will be posting something that will explain further what they will be doing. You are correct, this case and the district court case are both memorandum decisions, not precedential, and have no impact on anyone EXCEPT FOR THE CHILD I AM TRYING TO HELP. So, please give us a chance ot help this child and focus our efforts on him. I promise I will be posting soon and will send you a link to the statement so you can share it on your website – from the horses mouth, so to speak. thank you for your patients as I try to protect the one kid who is getting screwed by this decision. Amy Langerman, counsel for RM.
This is devastating ! Did they not hear about the abuse case in Berkeley heights ?! If our children are not in a general education environment then their peers will not be able to advocate for them. The world is diverse and it must start in the classroom. This is why the law was enacted in the first place in 1975, to desegregate. Why are we going back in time when we should be moving forward? This is nonsense.
I’m so disappointed with this ruling, and sad for the child and family.
It seems like the appellate court was making a factual ruling that student would make progress in a pull-out class rather than in gen Ed. I believe this is not the court’s role. Also how can the court see the future and side with the district? They’re just assuming the district is the expert. I’m relieved to hear it’s not precedent
Is this what the district does to other students in the past? Will it try to increase the time at the new school? Is it for the purpose of not paying for an aide the remainder of the 20 minutes of the day?
What is the underlying reason for their action? As a teacher, moving the child 5 miles away for 20 minutes does not make sense. Sounds like training for teachers and staff is missing.