The Supreme Court took the case on more rights for children with disabilities and autism in public schools on Tuesday but reports say that they have not come up with anything solid yet. More specifically, they could not pinpoint what they want to add for the rights of these children in order for them to benefit more.
The Washington Post reported the Supreme Court seemed ready to increase the educational benefits of the country's public schools to the millions of children with disabilities or autism as several lower courts believe that there should be "more" or "some" educational benefit for them. The justices were not able to come up with the right language to pertain to the higher standard that could benefit the concerned children.
The Supreme Court was seeking for a law that would be meaningful and enforceable as well as flexible in order to apply to children with different types of disabilities. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. talked about the words used during the hour-long oral argument, which some were significant, meaningful, appropriate in light of the child's circumstances.
"What is frustrating about this case and this statute is we have a blizzard of words," Alito said. It was not decided what the real term would be used if the case prospers.
The plaintiff for the case is Endrew F., an autistic boy who was removed from a public school because his behavior changed dramatically and there was no academic progress. The boy was then placed in a private school and the changes were more positive as opposed to when he was at the public school. They then sought for reimbursement in the payment of the child's tuition at the public school, Los Angeles Times reported.
They lost their case before the Court of Appeals. The law professor representing the family, Jeffrey Fisher of Stanford University, then suggested that schools should be required to provide services that will give equal educational opportunities. Fisher's stand was supported by an Obama administration lawyer, Irv Gornstein, noting that some of the educational benefits at some schools are too low.
Gornstein also noted that although it's not a guaranteed shot at progress, this will result to schools to aim better and higher to provide quality education. No future date was set regarding the hearing of the same case.
