Free Appropriate Public Education: The Law and Children with Disabilities (5th ed.)

1999 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 427-428
Author(s):  
Linda C. Hilgenbrinck
1986 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 347-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Rutherford Turnbull

The Education of the Handicapped Act requires state and local educational agencies to provide a free, appropriate public education to all children with disabilities. The meaning of “appropriate” was left quite open-ended by Congress, which predicated “appropriateness” on compliance with state standards and a child's IEP. The Supreme Court's first special education case, Board v. Rowley (1982), clarified the meaning of “appropriate”—as did the Court's later decision, Irving I.S.D. v. Tatro (1984)—but raised questions about just how far the EHA requires schools to go in educating a child. This article analyzes Rowley's meaning for “appropriate” education and justifies the rightness of that decision in terms of its impact on the education of the child and the integration of children who have disabilities with children who do not.


Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Michael Rozalski ◽  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
Jacob Warner

In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990) established the essential obligation of special education law, which is to develop a student’s individualized special education program that enables them to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE was defined in the federal law as special education and related services that: (a) are provided at public expense, (b) meet the standards of the state education agency, (c) include preschool, elementary, or secondary education, and (d) are provided in conformity with a student’s individualized education program (IEP). Thus, the IEP is the blueprint of an individual student’s FAPE. The importance of FAPE has been shown in the number of disputes that have arisen over the issue. In fact 85% to 90% of all special education litigation involves disagreements over the FAPE that students receive. FAPE issues boil down to the process and content of a student’s IEP. In this article, we differentiate procedural (process) and substantive (content) violations and provide specific guidance on how to avoid both process and content errors when drafting and implementing students’ IEPs.


2021 ◽  
pp. 105345122110326
Author(s):  
Perry A. Zirkel

This article delineates the four successive dimensions of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) central obligation of “free appropriation public education” that the courts have developed thus far: (a) procedural, (b) substantive, (c) incomplete implementation of the last individualized education program (IEP), and (d) incomplete implementation of the next IEP. This current snapshot cites illustrative cases and, to the extent available, empirical analyses. The final recommendation warns against lowering practice and policies to the minimum legal standards for each of these four “faces,” instead using them as organizing counter-markers for a proactive professional orientation.


1942 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 1077
Author(s):  
M. M. Chambers ◽  
Robert R. Hamilton ◽  
Paul R. Mort
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document