Source: https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/art/kl.misd.rowley.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:15:22+00:00

Document:
In J.L. and M.L., and their minor daughter, K.L. v. Mercer Island (WA) School District, U. S. District Court Judge Pechman reversed the decision of an Administrative Law Judge and ruled in favor of a high school student with dyslexia.
In support of her finding that the standards for a free appropriate public education described by the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley 458 U.S. 176 were no longer relevant, the judge cited changes in recent IDEA reauthorizations that are so significant "that any citation to pre-1997 case law on special education is suspect."Id.
K.L. is a 17-year-old high school student. She is of average intelligence but she has severe learning disabilities that affect her ability to read and write. From sixth grade through ninth grade, K.L. attended a public school that provided accommodations for her reading disability, but did not teach her to read.
Standardized testing showed that K. L.’s skills in reading and writing were years behind those of her peers. On the Gates-MacGinitie, she scored at the 1st percentile in reading.
Before K.L. began tenth grade, her parents removed her from the public school program and enrolled her in the Landmark School, a private special education school in Massachusetts. At Landmark School, K.L. learned to read and write.
K.L.'s parents requested that the school district reimburse them for her education at the Landmark School, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(10).
Although K.L. v. Mercer Island School District is a tuition reimbursement case that focuses on accommodations v. remediation, the decision lays out a higher standard for a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
Citing changes by Congress in the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA, the Court concluded that Rowley is no longer the standard for determining if a child’s special education program is appropriate. Because of longstanding problems caused by “low expectations, and an insufficient focus on applying replicable research on proven methods of teaching and learning for children with disabilities,” Congress placed increasing emphasis on transition services, independent living and economic self-sufficiency when they reauthorized IDEA 97.
In K.L., the Court questioned the school's reliance on the 1982 Supreme Court decision in Rowley that required schools to provide “access to specialized instruction,” that a school provided FAPE “if the student derives more than minimal or trivial progress” and the child’s program “was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit.” Id.
The Court found numerous deficits in the school district’s IEPs. The district focused on providing accommodations and failed to provide K.L. with remediation so she could learn to read. The school’s IEPs were deficient because they did not aim “at achieving independence and self-sufficiency for the student and to provide ‘meaningful (i.e., significant) educational benefits’ in that regard. Finally the IEPs failed to provide information about times and teaching methodologies that would be used to teach K.L. how to read. Id.
The Court found that having others read to K.L. and write for her “is totally at odds with the IDEA goals of self-sufficiency and independent living . . .” Id. The Judge also found that “providing a ‘meaningful educational benefit’ under the IDEA requires programs and results which reflect that Act’s emphasis on preparation for self-sufficiency.” Id.
Consider the progress K.L. made at Landmark (a multitude of tests showed she made “significant advances in reading, writing, and other literacy skills, progressing in areas where the District’s IEPs failed …”) Id.
The Court found that the “absence of any specification of teaching methodologies and time allotments to various services represents a further IDEA violation.” Id.
Most of the facts in this case occurred before IDEA was reauthorized in 2004. IDEA 2004, the new Federal Regulations, and the comprehensive Commentary to the Regulations provide additional support of the Court’s position that the 1982 decision in Rowley is "suspect."
In light of Congressional changes in IDEA 97 and IDEA 2004, a new definition of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) is evolving that emphasizes the transition from school to post-school activities, independence and self-sufficiency.
The Congressional Findings are in 20 U. S .C. §1400(c) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education act.
(1) Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to participate in or contribute to society. Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.
The full text of Findings at Section 1400(c) is in Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, pages 45-46.
The text of the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley 458 U.S. 176 is in Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, pages 343-358.
IDEA 2004 - Includes the IDEA 2004 statute, regulations and commentary; articles; guidance publications from the U. S. Department of Education on IDEA topics including child find, eligibility, evaluations, reevaluations, high stakes testing, IEPs, IEP teams, IEP meetings. accommodations, alternate assessments, placements, transition, parental rights, procedural safeguards, and more.
Scroll down the IDEA Statute page for the the IDEA 97 statute and regulations.
Reexamining Rowley: A New Focus in Special Education Law - Attorney Scott Johnson argues that the "some educational benefit" standard in Rowley no longer reflects the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. State standards and educational adequacy requirements provide requirements of a free appropriate public education (FAPE), these standards exceed the "some educational benefit" benchmark. This requires a fundamental change in how courts, school districts, and parents view special education services.
The parents’ due process request letter that describes James’ problems and cites falling test scores as evidence that the school was not teaching James to read or write.

References: v. 
 v. 
 §1412
 v. 
 v. 
 §1400
 v.