后罗利时代适当教育的法律标准。

IF 2.2 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
A G Osborne
{"title":"后罗利时代适当教育的法律标准。","authors":"A G Osborne","doi":"10.1177/001440299205800603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 1982 the U.S. Supreme Court held than an appropriate education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was one that was formulated in accordance with the Act's procedures and that conferred some educational benefit on students with disabilities. Initially, the lower court applied this terminology strictly and approved any proposed individualized education program that conferred even minimal educational benefit. However, later courts began to take a more liberal approach and held that the educational program must confer some meaningful benefit. A careful reading of the Supreme Court's 1982 decision indicates that this recent approach is consistent with Congress's and the Court's intent. The Court never intended to establish one test of appropriateness since it recognized that some flexibility was needed to determine what would be appropriate for a diverse population of students with disabilities.</p>","PeriodicalId":48164,"journal":{"name":"Exceptional Children","volume":"58 6","pages":"488-94"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"1992-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/001440299205800603","citationCount":"24","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legal standards for an appropriate education in the post-Rowley era.\",\"authors\":\"A G Osborne\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/001440299205800603\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In 1982 the U.S. Supreme Court held than an appropriate education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was one that was formulated in accordance with the Act's procedures and that conferred some educational benefit on students with disabilities. Initially, the lower court applied this terminology strictly and approved any proposed individualized education program that conferred even minimal educational benefit. However, later courts began to take a more liberal approach and held that the educational program must confer some meaningful benefit. A careful reading of the Supreme Court's 1982 decision indicates that this recent approach is consistent with Congress's and the Court's intent. The Court never intended to establish one test of appropriateness since it recognized that some flexibility was needed to determine what would be appropriate for a diverse population of students with disabilities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Exceptional Children\",\"volume\":\"58 6\",\"pages\":\"488-94\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"1992-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/001440299205800603\",\"citationCount\":\"24\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Exceptional Children\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299205800603\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Exceptional Children","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299205800603","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

摘要

1982年,美国最高法院裁定,根据《残疾人教育法》,适当的教育是根据该法案的程序制定的,并赋予残疾学生一些教育利益。最初,下级法院严格使用这一术语,并批准任何提出的个性化教育计划,即使是最低限度的教育效益。然而,后来的法院开始采取一种更为宽松的做法,认为教育项目必须带来一些有意义的好处。对最高法院1982年判决的仔细解读表明,最近的做法与国会和法院的意图是一致的。法院从未打算建立一种适当性的测试,因为它认识到需要一些灵活性来确定什么是适合不同的残疾学生群体的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Legal standards for an appropriate education in the post-Rowley era.

In 1982 the U.S. Supreme Court held than an appropriate education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was one that was formulated in accordance with the Act's procedures and that conferred some educational benefit on students with disabilities. Initially, the lower court applied this terminology strictly and approved any proposed individualized education program that conferred even minimal educational benefit. However, later courts began to take a more liberal approach and held that the educational program must confer some meaningful benefit. A careful reading of the Supreme Court's 1982 decision indicates that this recent approach is consistent with Congress's and the Court's intent. The Court never intended to establish one test of appropriateness since it recognized that some flexibility was needed to determine what would be appropriate for a diverse population of students with disabilities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
14.30%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Exceptional Children, an official journal of The Council for Exceptional Children, publishes original research and analyses that focus on the education and development of exceptional infants, toddlers, children, youth, and adults. This includes descriptions of research, research reviews, methodological reviews of the literature, data-based position papers, policy analyses, and registered reports. Exceptional Children publishes quantitative, qualitative, and single-subject design studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信