Based on the above statement, Ginsburg seems to be missing the point of this case. Specifically:
An IEP is written for a student, after an evaluation of that child's needs. The assessment and the IEP are written by the same person and approved by the administration (at least in Contra Costa County, and likely in other districts). The IEP is written by a professionally trained and licensed therapists, the goals and program is designed to attain certain results, based on that child's capabilities.
If the IEP is not adequate, then the results will not be achieved (yes there are many variables at work here). But the people in position to best evaluate the overall results, are the parents. That is what this case seems to be saying.
The IEP is written during an IEP meeting. The meeting is attended by, the child's teacher(s), the parents, the special education teacher, a school administrator, and after the child reaches 14, the child himself. We all, write the IEP. WE all must agree and sign off on the program. If the parent disagrees, and the school will not change the program, they start the process of appealing to a higher authority.
I feel for these parents who obviously were not in agreement with the course that the school wanted to take.
I have had some school districts that thought the thing my kid needed most was "socialization" skills. My kid needed academic help and they were concerned that he wasn't making enough friends! So, they put him in with a "buddy"...an older boy who did not share our values---read him occultic books, used foul language and talked to him about inappropriate subjects, in our opinion! But, this "buddy" program was a part of our boy's IEP and could not be taken out without rewriting it! I would say that this course did not help my son in anyway, with his learning disabilities. It was a waste of valuable learning time, in my opinion. We chose not to fight it, because we were moving anyway.
This judgement is in essence saying that the school knows best what is best for the child. I am surprized that so many here are applauding this ruling, as it actually is another brick thrown through parental rights.