Lesson Two Reading

The Educational Benefit Process

U.S. SUPREME COURT

HENDRICK HUDSON DIST. BD. OF ED. V. ROWLEY, 458 U.S. 176 (1892)

458 U.S. 176

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE HENDRICK HUDSON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, ET AL. V. ROWLEY, BY HER PARENTS, ROWLEY ET UX. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OF THE SECOND CURCUIT

NO. 80-1002

Argued March 23, 1982
Decided June 28, 1982

“... Implicit in the congressional purpose of providing access to a ‘free appropriate public education’ is the requirement that the education to which access is provided be sufficient to confer some educational benefit upon the handicapped child. It would do little good for Congress to spend millions of dollars in providing access to a public education only to have the [458 U.S. 176, 201] handicapped child receive no benefit from that education. The statutory definition of ‘free appropriate public education,’ in addition to requiring that States provide each child with ‘specially designed instruction,’ expressly requires the provision of ‘such ... supportive services ... as may be required to assist a handicapped child to benefit from special education.’ 1401(17) (emphasis added) We therefore conclude that the ‘basic floor of opportunity’ provided by the Act consists of access to specialized instruction and related services which are individually designed to provide educational benefit to the handicapped child. [458 U.S. 176, 202]

“The determination of when handicapped children are receiving sufficient educational benefits to satisfy the requirements of the Act presents a more difficult problem. The Act requires participating States to educate a wide spectrum of handicapped children, from the marginally hearing-impaired to the profoundly retarded and palsied. It is clear that the benefits obtainable by children at one end of the spectrum will differ dramatically from those obtainable by children at the other end, with infinite variations in between. One child may have little difficulty competing successfully in an academic setting with non-handicapped children while another child may encounter great difficulty in acquiring even the most basic of self-maintenance skills. We do not attempt today to establish any one test for determining the adequacy of educational benefits conferred upon all children covered by the Act. Because in this case we are presented with a handicapped child who is receiving substantial specialized instruction and related services, and who is performing above average in the regular classrooms of a public school system, we confine our analysis to that situation.

—from the U.S. Supreme Court

What is the Educational Benefit Process?

“Within the Board of Education v. Rowley decision, the threshold used was the provision of sufficient supportive services to permit the child to benefit from the instruction. Instruction should be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade."

—from the opinion issued by Justice William H. Rehnquist

When a child has a disability that directly interferes with his or her ability to learn, instruction is specially designed to address that child’s unique needs. An educational benefit process is completed to determine if that instruction ensures the child has access to the general education curriculum so that he or she has the opportunity to meet the educational goals and standards that apply to all children.

The educational benefit process helps individualized education program (IEP) teams improve outcomes for students with disabilities. The California Department of Education (CDE) uses an educational benefit process in Special Education Self-Reviews (SESR) and Verification Reviews (VR). During reviews, determinations are made as to whether students have made reasonable progress and received educational benefits.

Five questions are asked during the CDE's educational benefit process:

Does the district use the standard established by the Rowley case to provide services that result in educational benefit?
Does the district provide services that result in educational benefit, as measured by special education goals and key performance indicators?
Does the district comply with procedural guarantees that are known to be frequent noncompliance items in other districts?
Does the district fulfill its responsibilities as the district of residence when its students are served by other districts and programs?
Does the SELPA (special education local plan area), of which the district is a part, fulfill its responsibilities for monitoring the procedural elements of the local plan?

In reviewing individual student records, the following educational benefit questions are reviewed:

Is the assessment complete and does it identify the student’s needs?
Does the present level of academic achievement include all of the areas of need, as identified in the assessment?
Are all of the student’s educational needs addressed by appropriate goals and objectives?
Do the services support goals and objectives?
Did the student make yearly progress?
If the student did not make progress
- Were enough services provided to ensure that the student could make progress?
- Considering the answer to each of the questions above, was the individualized education program (IEP) reasonably calculated to result in educational benefit?
- Once the lack of progress was identified, were goals and objectives changed in the subsequent IEP to assist the student in making progress?\
- Were the services changed in the subsequent IEP to assist the student in making progress?
To assess for overall compliance, consider the answers to each of the above. Was the IEP reasonably calculated to result in educational benefit?

The educational benefit process involves:

Recording information included in the student’s IEP and other records
Analyzing a relationship between the identified needs, goals, and services
Comparing progress to the prior year
Completing the educational benefit summary form (see next page) to see if there are patterns to the program planned for the student
Discussing overall educational benefit—was the student’s program reasonably planned to result in educational benefit?
Reviewing the student’s progress and adjusting the student’s IEP if progress is not made and/or in order to address anticipated needs