This case before the U.S. Supreme Court will address one of the great inadequacies of Special Education in the United States. There are clear and high standards of "progress" for non-disabled students, but, generally, schools are obliged to provide only "minimally adequate" progress for special education students. 1. "[M]inimally adequate" is offensive and degrading. 2. This coincides nicely with our case against the local school district and California State Department of Education. 3. In defense of school districts, Special Education is yet another underfunded mandate that often puts local and state government in awkward position of robbing one group to fund another. And this pits abled families against the families of the disabled. I would hope the Supreme Court would address this underfunding, as well. 4. The rhetoric from the defense betrays the cynical, minimalist, perfunctory compliance that most states and school districts think they can get away with. I urge you to look at the comments accompanying the article. "General education" funds being taken away for Special Education is a repeated complaint. Many comments reflect an ignorance about Special Education, but there can be little doubt that, being an unfunded Federal mandate, non-disabled families are bound to be resentful. Systemically, general education must compete with Special Education. And this promotes anger towards students with special needs. I will be watching this with great anticipation. My gratitude to the Obama administration for taking up this issue. This question of what is the responsibility of school districts is at the core of Paul's issues.