Source: http://www.childrenslegalrightsjournal.com/childrenslegalrightsjournal/volume_38_issue_1?pg=53
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:48:12+00:00

Document:
50 Children’s Legal Rights Journal [Vol. 38: 1 2018] show the reader how the current circuit split has caused problems at the IEP implementation stage. Part II of this paper will give an overview of the types of disabilities that are covered under the IDEA as well as the legislative and judicial history of the IDEA. Part III of this paper will discuss the circuit split and the recent Supreme Court decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. 6 Then, reasons why solving the circuit split through the judicial process does not solve the application problem will be addressed in Part IV. Finally, Part V will discuss possible solutions for solving this problem, and Part VI will conclude.
In San Antonio v. Rodriguez, the United States Supreme Court held that there is no Constitutional right to education. 7 While Rodriguez was a case about the state’s use of property tax to fund public schools, it is one of the seminal cases cited as the reason there is no fundamental right to a public education. Interestingly, just a year prior to Rodriguez, the Court recognized in Wisconsin v. Yoder that states have a legitimate interest in the education of their children. 8 Thus, any right to education would come from legislatures, and the responsibility of educating our youth rested in the states’ hands. 9 Education tailored to the individual needs of the child was traditionally only for the upper echelons of society. 10 It was not until the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s that Americans started to push for education for all students. 11 In Brown v. Board of Education, Chief Justice Warren said, "[I]t is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education." 12 Finally, we had a nation that cared about the education of our society, at least in the abstract.
6 See generally Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. 988.
7 San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973) (holding that “[p]ublic education is not a ‘right’ granted to individuals by the Constitution”).
8 Margaret Condit, Remember the IDEA: A Call for Courts to Apply a Piecemeal Approach to Transition Litigation, 38 T. JEFFERSON L. REV. 6, 13 (2016) (citing Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 213 (1972); see also Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968). While invalidating an anti-evolution teaching statute on First Amendment grounds, the Court notes that “by and large, public education in our Nation is committed to the control of state and local authorities.” Id.
9 Condit, supra note 8, at 13; see generally U.S. Const. amend. X (granting states sovereign powers in certain areas). 10 See Dep’t of Educ., From There to Here: The Road to Reform of American High Schools at 1, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/hsinit/papers/history.pdf (last visited Mar. 8, 2017) (“Until the 20th century, secondary education was a small-scale experience, largely reserved for the privileged, rather than the nearly universal democratic institution of today”); see also generally American Public Education: An Origin Story, EDUC. NEWS (Apr. 16, 2013), http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/american-public-education-an-origin-story.
11 Condit, supra note 8, at 14–15.
12 Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954).
13 Idaho State Dep’t of Educ., Identification of Children with Disabilities (2017), http://www.sde.idaho.gov/sped/public-reporting/files/state-determination/StateStateid-datadisplay-2017bState-Data- Display.pdf.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.