Wednesday, 7 March 2012

'CONDUCIVE EDUCATION' IN COURT

Is 'developmental' early intervention educational?
And does this Supreme Court finding still stand?

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether, Under 20 U.S.C. §1415(j), the Stay-Put Placement for a Child Transitioning From Part C to Part B of IDEA and Applying for Initial Admission to Public School, is the Child’s IFSP, Which May Not Include An Educational Component (p. 1)

NOTE 4: Conducive education is an educational approach for children with central nervous system disabilities which helps develop problem-solving skills. Id. at 182. Unlike in Pardini, in the Eleventh Circuit D.P. appeal, the triplets’ IFSPs did not contain any educational component.

CONCLUSION: The Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be Denied (p. 23)

A drafting error?

Do note that this finding concerns itself with an entity called 'conducive education' Presumably use of the word 'conducive' for 'conductive ' throughout this document was no more than an unnoticed drafting error. I know nothing of US law. Does this High Court finding stand for Conductive Education?

Substantive moral of the story

Conducive education is an educational approach for children with central nervous system disabilities... the triplets’ IFSPs did not contain any educational component.

CE in the US may find itself with a real problem under educational law, one of its own making, as long as it presents and provides itself primarily as a therapy rather than primarily as an education.

References

Supreme Court of the United States (2007) 07- 613: D.E on Behalf of E.E, D.E and K.E, and L.E on Behalf of E.E, D.E, and K.E, Petitioners, V. School Board of Broward County, Florida, Respondent, December

A few months later, with no awareness of this court hearing, Conductive World published the following:

Sutton, A, (2008) Conductive and conducive: another source of confusion, Conductive World, 23 April

No comments:

Post a Comment