{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017215189873417722, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004050632911392405, 'mean_word_length': 5.72108843537415, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Legal Requirements for Progress Monitoring Under the IDEA: What Do the Courts Say?

ABSTRACT The special education literature has included a continuing line of articles and chapters that have translated for practitioners the legal meaning of the progress monitoring provisions in the successive versions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This article examines this line of publications in light of the language of the applicable statutory framework and the parallel line of judicial rulings specific to progress monitoring under the IDEA. These judicial rulings, which are the centerpiece of this analysis and which span the period from 1990 to 2021, form a continuous and consistent pattern that is severely discrepant with the characterization in the publications to date. For example, in these progress-monitoring rulings, the courts have applied the relatively relaxed analyses of either the procedural or implementation – not the substantive – category of the IDEA’s “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) obligation. Similarly, rather than treating progress monitoring as an “absolutely essential” priority for IEPs based on objective measures and high frequency, the vast majority of the rulings have been in favor of districts despite evidence of progress monitoring provisions that are either entirely absent in the IEP or do not meet such rigorous standards. Consequently, based on overlapping criteria of completeness, accuracy, and transparency, the conclusion is that the legal quality of these special education publications warrants improvement to be commensurate with their impressive level of legal quantity. The suggested improvements include not only clear differentiation between, but also a solid foundation for, legal requirements and professional recommendations. Their purpose is not just monitoring but achieving meaningful progress in the legal literacy and professional practice in educating students with disabilities.