It’s hard to believe that it wasn’t until the mid-1970s thatchildren with disabilities even had the right to attend publicschool. Conferred only after several ground-breaking Supreme Courtcases, and the passage of The Education for All HandicappedChildren Act of 1975 (the EHA), this right entitled access to enterthrough the school’s doors. There was little in the Supreme Courtrulings or the EHA to indicate that children with disabilities hadthe right to receive a quality education.

Related: More employees will take on caregiving duties asU.S. ages

In 1982, with the Supreme Court’s decision in Board of Education v. Rowley, we as a nationtook some steps toward addressing the issue of educational qualityfor children with disabilities.

In Rowley, the Court held that the requirement inthe Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, formerlyEHA) to provide a “substantively adequate program of education toall eligible children,” is satisfied when a child’s IndividualizedEducation Program (IEP) is “reasonably calculated to enable thechild to receive educational benefits.”

In that case, where little Amy Rowley was educated in theregular education classroom, the Court held, that her IEP must be“reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marksand advance from grade to grade.” At the time, this clear standardprovided crucial guidance.

The Court in Rowley, however, failed to explicitlyaddress what constitutes “educational benefit” when the specialeducation and related services outlined in a child’s IEP aredelivered outside the regular classroom setting. Fortunately, theSupreme Court’s 2017 decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County SchoolDistrict directly addresses this question.

Further, the Endrew ruling corrects astandard set by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that a merely “deminimus” educational benefit was all that a school district wasrequired to provide a child with disabilities via his or herIndividualized Education Program (IEP).

Related: Is there a way to help familycaregivers?

Instead, the Supreme Court held that “to meet its substantiveobligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonablycalculated to enable a child to make progressappropriate in light of the child’s circumstances”(emphasis added).

While the Endrew decision is certainly a step in the rightdirection, it still leaves the responsibility for creating aneffective IEP squarely on the shoulders of educators and parents.The Court was clear that it was unwilling to substitute its ownjudgment as to what constitutes an appropriate IEP in light of achild’s circumstances citing that “the benefits obtainable bychildren [with disabilities] at one end of the spectrum will differdramatically from those obtainable by children [with disabilities]at the other end, with infinite variations in between.”

Related: How to protect your business from caregivingdiscrimination lawsuits

Working in concert, therefore, educators and parents are chargedwith creating an “appropriately ambitious program” that (a) meetsthe unique needs of a child, (b) allows him or her access to thegeneral education curriculum, and (c) provides the means by whichs/he can “advance appropriately toward attaining annual goals.”

Under the best circumstances, creating effective IEPs foreligible children with disabilities is challenging. Additionalobstacles also exist for both the educators and family members atthe table. Educators, for instance, are often unaware of the fullextent of what special education laws actually require.

After all, they went to school to become teachers, not lawyers.In addition, many schools are ill-equipped to provide theinstruction and services that a child truly needs because of, amongother things, the lack of qualified personnel and appropriateprograms.

Parents and family members, for their part, likewise strugglewith lack of knowledge about relevant education laws, a perceivedimbalance of power with the “professionals” around the IEP Teamtable, and little awareness of advocacy strategies to use whenthere is disagreement with the school about services.

Strained relationships between families and school personnel--anunfortunate but commonplace occurrence--only compound theaforementioned challenges.

Caregiving: It’s everyone’s business (includingemployers)

Given what’s at stake -- a child’s future -- the level ofexpertise required on the part of both educators and parents isdaunting. It’s not just about what the law does and doesn’trequire; it’s also about understanding the specifics of differentdisabilities and the particular circumstances of the individualchild in question -- his or her strengths, interests, andchallenges.

To be truly successful, educators and parents alike musttogether embrace a commitment to best practices in teaching andlearning, and, perhaps most important of all, they must believeabsolutely and without apology that children--all children--have aright to a quality education.

This belief must also extend beyond the walls of schools andhomes and into the workplace. The majority of children withdisabilities have at least one parent who works full time. Thesepersistent parents -- many of whom are also beleaguered andstressed juggling work and family responsibilities -- are youremployees, your colleagues, and, maybe even your boss.

And they need the support of their employer in the form offlexible policies and targeted benefits that provide access to theresources they need to ensure their children’s success at schooland in life. Parents shouldn’t have to go to court to get whattheir children need. No doubt, the Supreme Court would agree.