Supreme Court win for students with disabilities

[Stephanie Feyne]

Thanks Dwight Godwin for the share: 

Huge win...

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/21/1165072110/supreme-court-hands-victory-to-public-school-students-with-disabilities

A welcome change from the Amy Rowley case

Stephanie 

Typos courtesy iPhone

[Stephanie Jo Kent]

This is great news!  Surprising and very, very welcome!

Dwight, I was gonna ask you about the Rowley case but instead asked ChatGPT.  I'm curious how many on this list are using this new tool and/or already have strong opinions about it?

Here's the exchange:

sjk: Summarize the Amy Rowley case.

GPT: The Amy Rowley case, also known as Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, was a 1982 legal case in the United States that centered around the issue of educational opportunities for children with disabilities.

Amy Rowley was a deaf student in the Hendrick Hudson Central School District in New York, who required special education services to succeed in school. Her parents requested that the school district provide a sign language interpreter for her, but the school district refused, arguing that Amy was making progress in her education without one. The case ultimately went to the Supreme Court.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district, stating that under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), schools were only required to provide a "free appropriate public education" to students with disabilities, but not necessarily the best possible education or all the services that might be helpful. The Court held that the school district had met its legal obligations by providing Amy with individualized instruction, and that providing a sign language interpreter was not necessary to provide her with an appropriate education.

The Rowley decision set a precedent that schools are only required to provide a basic level of education to students with disabilities, rather than the best possible education or all possible services. It also established the concept of individualized education plans (IEPs) for students with disabilities, which require schools to create a customized plan for each student that takes into account their individual needs and abilities.

[Stephanie Jo Kent]

ps, I got curious and asked a few more questions of ChatGPT.

It took two turns because I pretended as if it would 'know' (as in, have access to the news) but started out in normal conversation as if it would. The trick I've learned from practicing is to revise my questions until I get something useful. Notice the paragraph below in blue text.

I wonder if the national level certifying bodies are ready to use this decision and make a big push for expansion of federal support in interpreter training to ramp up and meet this need?

best to all,

steph

sjk: Discuss the implications of the March 21, 2023 unanimous decision in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools.

GPT: I'm sorry, but as an AI language model, I do not have access to current events beyond my knowledge cutoff date of September 2021, and the March 21, 2023 decision in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools is a hypothetical scenario. Please let me know if you have any other questions that I may be able to assist you with.

sjk: Here's some info about the case, can you read this and then extrapoloate implications based on your knowledge of public schools in the US and the provision of sign language interpreters for deaf students? "A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a deaf student can sue his school for its failure to provide him a public education tailored to his needs. Because the decision allows for the possibility of two separate lawsuits, it could give parents more leverage in negotiating with public schools over assistance for children with disabilities. Miguel Luna Perez enrolled in the Sturgis, Mich., public schools starting when he was 9 years old. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, the district was required to give him an appropriate public school education. But instead of providing Perez with aides able to translate class material into sign language, as promised, the aides were not trained in sign language at all, and often were absent from classes." (source: https://www.npr.org/2023/03/21/1165072110/supreme-court-hands-victory-to-public-school-students-with-disabilities)

GPT: Based on the information provided, the implications of the unanimous decision in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools could be significant for the provision of sign language interpreters for deaf students in public schools in the United States. The decision allows deaf students to sue their schools for not providing them with the necessary accommodations, and it could give parents more leverage in negotiating with schools over assistance for children with disabilities.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools are required to provide an appropriate education to students with disabilities, which may include the provision of sign language interpreters for deaf students. The decision in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools underscores the importance of fulfilling this requirement and providing deaf students with the necessary accommodations to enable them to succeed in school.

This decision could also have implications for the training of aides and teachers who work with students with disabilities, including those who require sign language interpretation. Schools may need to invest more resources in training and hiring staff who are qualified to work with students who are deaf or hard of hearing, in order to ensure that these students receive an appropriate education.

Overall, the decision in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools highlights the importance of providing appropriate accommodations and support for students with disabilities, and it may have a positive impact on the quality of education that deaf students and other students with disabilities receive in public schools.

[Phlip O]

You may want to be careful with chatGPT. It disguises untruths among actual truths sometimes. For example, GPT's summary of the Rowley case is largely correct, this part: I"t also established the concept of individualized education plans (IEPs) for students with disabilities"

IEPs were established in 1975 as a result of The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) in 1975 (https://easchools.org/2020/10/22/history-of-the-individualized-education-program-iep/) (which later was updated to the IDEA.)

IEPs were not a result of the Rowley case in 1982, because Amy Rowley had an IEP. 

ChatGPT does not list any sources (as opposed to wikipedia, for example), it merely gleans what it thinks you want to hear from a miasma of personal and anonymous internet inputs. So it can be useful because there are lots of good facts on the internet, but like many tools, it can also cause harm. 

The Endrew case (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endrew_F._v._Douglas_County_School_Dist._RE%E2%80%931) is, I believe, the strongest recent precedent today for this recent case, and together these 2 cases could have huge implications for Deaf education particularly.

On Mar 23, 2023, at 9:47 AM, Stephanie Jo Kent <stephani...@gmail.com> wrote:



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/NIDG/eb25243b-b42d-426a-973d-eaa39f9e0eb0n%40googlegroups.com.

[Stephanie Jo Kent]

Thanks Phlip for correcting that detail :)

I didn't know anything about the Amy Rowley case. I agree that we need to be cautious users of ChatGPT and - in order to build that skill, we have to use it.

btw, ChatGPT will often give you citations if you keep asking. You have to treat it as an actual conversation with smart turn-taking and crafting of questions. Basically, it's a way to practice critical thinking.

respectfully,

steph

[Dwight Godwin]

I have been using ChatGPT for a few months now.

Personally I think it is a great tool.

If I am stuck for thoughts on a paper I use it to get me started.  But I always double check the information it gives me and search for back up citations. 

So far I have not had it give any egregious errors.

Dwighf

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/NIDG/3c7fb1b2-ede0-4027-be58-66e697044aaan%40googlegroups.com.

[Stephanie Jo Kent]

That's cool Dwight!

I went back to ChatGPT to demonstrate what I mean by smart conversational turn-taking, incorporating Phlip's information:

sjk: Why do you say that IEPs were established because of the Amy Rowley case when she already had an IEP?

GPT: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. You are correct that IEPs were not established as a result of the Amy Rowley case, as I previously stated. The concept of individualized education plans (IEPs) was actually established in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA), which was passed several years prior to the Amy Rowley case in 1982.

​​The Rowley case did, however, contribute to the interpretation and understanding of the IDEA and the requirements for providing an appropriate education to students with disabilities. The case helped to establish the standard for what constituted an appropriate education for a student with a disability and emphasized the importance of individualized education plans (IEPs) that take into account the unique needs of each student.

I apologize for any confusion that my earlier response may have caused and thank you again for bringing this to my attention.

sjk: How does the Endrew case relate to Rowley and Perez?

GPT: The Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District case is related to the Rowley and Perez cases in that it concerns the interpretation and application of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the requirement to provide a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE) to students with disabilities.

In the Rowley case, the Supreme Court established that the IDEA requires schools to provide students with disabilities with a "meaningful" or "appropriate" education, but did not provide a clear standard for what this meant. The Court held that the appropriate education for a student with a disability is one that is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits."

In the Endrew F. case, the Supreme Court built on the Rowley decision and clarified that the IDEA requires schools to provide students with disabilities with an education that is "appropriately ambitious" and "reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances." The Court held that schools must provide students with disabilities with individualized education plans (IEPs) that are tailored to meet their unique needs and enable them to make meaningful progress in their education.

The Perez case, on the other hand, concerns the failure of a school to provide a student with disabilities with the support and accommodations that he was entitled to under the IDEA. The case highlights the importance of ensuring that schools provide students with disabilities with the support and accommodations they need to receive a meaningful education and make progress in their learning.

Taken together, the Rowley, Endrew F., and Perez cases emphasize the importance of providing students with disabilities with individualized education plans that are tailored to meet their unique needs and enable them to make progress in their education. They also highlight the need for schools to provide students with disabilities with the support and accommodations they need to access the curriculum and participate fully in school activities.

[Betty Colonomos]

A friend asked ChatGPT about me and what came back was partially accurate, except that it said that I developed "tactile interpreting" for working with Deaf Blind consumers, which is completely out of my wheelhouse. Cannot fathom where all this came from since I have never written anything about this or taught any workshops on this. So I urge users to double check facts when relying on this app.

[Stephanie Jo Kent]

Thanks Betty, for another example of the need for fact-checking with ChatGPT.

No dispute from me.

Can we return to my original question? I wonder if the national level certifying bodies are ready to use this [Perez vs Sturgis Public Schools] decision and make a big push for expansion of federal support in interpreter training to ramp up and meet this need?

I'm coming back to this question for a couple of reasons.  I remember years ago when there was a high profile fake interpreter case (possibly the imposter who interpreting for Obama in South Africa) and I'd inquired of RID leadership at the time about being ready/mobilized to take advantage of the next big incident with a public information campaign. We were not prepared and did miss a huge opportunity within the next 6mo to a year.

The way social movements progress is a combination of the painstaking work of paid staff in critical organizations and the mobilization of public support at spontaneous moments of media attention. The list of examples of how this works is extensive.

At the root of my question is the extent to which our professional organizations are collaborating with regard to long-term strategy, and how much 'outside' perspective is being incorporated? Because without the marginalized and alternative viewpoints, there is not much hope that our organizations - for all their impressive efforts - will do anything more than continue spinning in more-or-less the same cycles as ever.

How, how, where, when and among whom is this kind of strategy being built?

respectfully,

steph

[Whitney Hill]

Hi all, Deaf education attorney here and I have lots of thoughts! 

First, just a quick guide to Rowley. Rowley is a fundamental case under the IDEA as it defines what constitutes a free appropriate public education (FAPE), which we are always trying to figure out in special education. Rowley was a Deaf student that wanted full time interpreters but she was getting good grades with interpreters half the day. The Supreme Court (wrongly) decided she wasn't entitled to the full day interpreters because she was still making educational progress. Rowley is still good law although the outcome would be different if this case came up today post-ADA. Endrew F. later helped clarify the FAPE standard but overall has had little practical impact. Rowley is still the law and it is a district friendly standard. 

Perez was asking a totally different question. The issue in Perez ultimately was whether parents could sue a school district for money damages for language deprivation. A language deprivation claim against a district essentially has two parts. There is an IDEA part where you ask the school to fix the IEP and give the student a bunch of compensatory education. And then there is the ADA part that asks the district to give the student money damages for discrimination. Parent attorneys nation-wide were getting stuck because when you bring these claims, the districts are quick to place the student in Deaf school and provide hundreds of hours to comp ed to settle the IDEA claim. Previous to Perez, if you settle the IDEA claim, you can't move forward with your ADA claim because you failed to "exhaust your remedies," which just means that they didn't go all the way through with a due process hearing and have a judge decide your case. 

In Perez the Court basically said that the exhaustion rule is just protecting districts from money damages claims when they do really messed up stuff, like language deprivation, and parents can move forward with both claims even when they settle under the IDEA. This is great news for language deprivation cases everywhere. In Washington, we have a state-specific anti-discrimination law that has allowed us to bring several language deprivation cases against school districts as there is no exhaustion requirement, but now that option is available to attorneys nation-wide! YAY! I think the long term impacts is that school districts will finally have to take language deprivation seriously or it will cost them a lot. In Washington, we have found that districts are more inclined to place students at residential deaf schools as providing interpreters for students with language deprivation is often a failed intervention, but we will see for sure.  

[Sean Gerlis]

Certified ADA Coordinator here…

How does this case differ from Roe v. Wade when the Supreme Court struck down “emotional damages” last April 2022?

I understand that emotional damages are critical to any ADA-related cases concerning monetary awards. 

If I’m looking into this correctly, how would Perez’s case successfully ensure this?

I think Perez case justifies the right to have interpreters at schools regardless, but without any monetary awards. It’s the state court that ensure any compensation value for Perez on their any of post elementary education (secondary-colleges, etc.)

-S

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/NIDG/ccb09a50-16d0-40a4-83b4-5aae7a5ca70dn%40googlegroups.com.

--

Respectfully,

-Sean

****************************************

Sean Gerlis, ADAC

e. seang...@gmail.com

l: Linkedin

****************************************

[Steph Kent]

Hi Whitney...

I like where you wound up: "...we have found that districts are more inclined to place students at residential deaf schools as providing interpreters for students with language deprivation is often a failed intervention, but we will see for sure." Seems some kind of coordinated info/education/support campaign would be useful to let stakeholders know about this, that's what I'm asking about.

The angle on Rowley being "good law" is hard to take since the definition of "appropriate" is linked (if I've remembered the details) to evidence of student progress rather than to provision of services? (This is perhaps why you say Rowley is "district friendly" rather than human-friendly.) I know the law changes case-by-case... what you're saying is that Perez does not improve the definition of appropriate (?) because it's about separating two related-but-separate legal 'spaces' - one is the IDEA legal 'space' and the other is the ADA legal space.

Is this summary close?

lol,

best,

steph

On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 7:37 PM Whitney Hill <whitneyh...@gmail.com> wrote:

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/NIDG/8bSVAQhkIAU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/NIDG/ccb09a50-16d0-40a4-83b4-5aae7a5ca70dn%40googlegroups.com.