Roland M. And Miriam M. v. The Concord School Committee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that judges should give “due weight” to a state agency’s decision in order to “prevent judges from imposing their view of preferable educational methods upon the States”
• warning that courts ought not to allow parents to prevail when the inadequacy of an IEP was “created by their own obstructionism”
• explaining that “actual educational results are relevant to determining the efficacy of educators’ policy choices”
• noting that “[a]ca-demic standards are matters peculiarly within the expertise of ... local educational authorities”
• explaining that “purely academic progress ... is not the only indici[um] of educational benefit”
• holding that in light of the parents’ “lack of cooperation with ongoing attempts to develop the [IEP]” and the “lack of any indication of procedural bad faith,” the court was satisfied that the school “fulfilled the essence of its procedural responsibilities”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).