SOME, MEANINGFUL, OR APPROPRIATE: HOW SHOULD A CHILD’S SPECIAL EDUCATION BE JUDGED? A COMPARISON OF THE APPROACHES IN THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND

Bradley M. Wanner

Abstract

The Note discusses the substantive educational benefit guaranteed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) to children with a qualifying disability. Since the late 1980s, there have been two standards employed by the courts: the “some” educational benefit and the “meaningful” educational benefit. The Note discusses the application of both standards as applied to cases under the IDEA generally. As both standards find their roots in the same decision of the Supreme Court, the goal here is to determine if there is a perceptible difference in the two standards. This is followed by a discussion of the application of two standards to cases where the child suffers from an autism spectrum disorder (“ASD”). Here, the focus is again on the possible difference between the two standards and also to determine if the application of each standard changes when dealing with an ASD. The second half of the paper turns to the approach taken in England to the substantive educational requirement in England. The application of this approach is discussed in special education cases generally and in cases where the child suffers from an ASD. Where appropriate, comparisons are made to the approach in the United States. The Note concludes with a recommendation that the “meaningful” educational benefit should be adopted as the standard by which to measure a child’s education under the IDEA. A method to determine whether a child receives this substantive educational benefit is also provided.