Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): The U.S. Supreme Court and Special Education

2017 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 321-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela M. T. Prince ◽  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
Antonis Katsiyannis
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Public Education ◽  
School District ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Education Act ◽  
The U.S

On March 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. This case addressed the question how much educational benefit are public schools required to provide to students with disabilities under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to confer a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The purpose of this legal update is to provide a brief overview of court developments regarding FAPE, summarize Endrew, and provide implications for practice.

Mental Health Services, Free Appropriate Public Education, and Students With Disabilities: Legal Considerations in Identifying, Evaluating, and Providing Services

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 67-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell Yell ◽  
Carl Smith ◽  
Antonis Katsiyannis ◽  
Mickey Losinski
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Public Education ◽  
School District ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Education Act

In the past few years, the provision of mental health services in public schools has received considerable attention. When students with disabilities are eligible for special education and related services under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), mental health services are required if such services are needed to provide students with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). That is, when a student’s individualized education program (IEP) team determines that he or she needs mental health services to receive a FAPE, a school district is required to provide these services. Our purpose is to discuss when school district personnel should identify, evaluate, and serve students with disabilities who may have mental health needs.

Perspectives on the Future of IDEA

1997 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Hardman ◽  
John McDonnell ◽  
Marshall Welch
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Public Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Individualized Education Program ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Individualized Education ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Restrictive Environment

Since its original passage in 1975 as Public Law 94-142, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has been the cornerstone of practice in special education. This federal law has enabled all eligible students with disabilities to access a free and appropriate public education. During the past 2 years, the 104th Congress has debated vigorously some of the law's basic tenets (e.g., definition of disability, content of the individualized education plan [IEP], parental rights to attorneys, fees, discipline, and placement). The basic requirements of the law remain intact and continue to shape the scope and content of special education. This article addresses whether or not the assumptions upon which IDEA is based remain valid as we approach the 21st century. We critique these assumptions within the context of four requirements of IDEA: (a) eligibility and labeling, (b) free and appropriate public education, (c) the individualized education program (IEP), and (d) the least restrictive environment. Recommendations for changes in existing law relative to each of the above requirements are presented.

States Decrease Their Required Secondary Transition Planning Age: Federal Policy Must Change

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-118
Author(s):  
Andrea L. Suk ◽  
James E. Martin ◽  
Amber E. McConnell ◽  
Tiffany L. Biles
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Transition Planning ◽  
Special Education Law ◽  
Education Law ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Federal Mandate ◽  
Transition Models ◽  
Education Act ◽  
The U.S

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act 2004 mandates transition planning for students with disabilities begin by the age of 16 years. Currently, no study exists describing when states and territories require transition planning to begin; we conducted a methodical review to determine this age. We found over half (52%) the U.S. states and territories (29 of 56) require transition planning begin prior to the federal age 16 mandate. To argue the age 16 federal mandate is too old and needs to be lowered to at least age 14, we review special education law, provide a summary of influential position statements, cite relevant data-based studies, and provide an overview of research-based transition models.

scholarly journals The Lost Promise of Disability Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 933
Author(s):  
Claire Raj
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Public Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Educational Opportunity ◽  
Section 504 ◽  
Equal Access ◽  
Disability Rights ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Education Act

Children with disabilities are among the most vulnerable students in public schools. They are the most likely to be bullied, harassed, restrained, or segregated. For these and other reasons, they also have the poorest academic outcomes. Overcoming these challenges requires full use of the laws enacted to protect these students’ affirmative right to equal access and an environment free from discrimination. Yet, courts routinely deny their access to two such laws—the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (section 504). Courts too often overlook the affirmative obligations contained in these two disability rights laws and instead assume that students with disabilities’ only legal recourse is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Regrettably the IDEA is not capable of remedying all the harms students endure. In fact, the IDEA, by its terms, extends to only a subset of students with disabilities. Even so, courts force all students to exhaust the IDEA’s administrative procedures before invoking remedies under the other two disability rights laws. By narrowly construing antidiscrimination principles and ignoring the affirmative obligations contained in disability rights laws, courts unduly restrict students’ protections under these laws. This Article solves that problem by explaining and clarifying the nuance that drives confusion in this area: the difference between the IDEA’s guarantee of a free appropriate public education and the ADA and section 504’s guarantee of equal access to public education. With that distinction clear, this Article disaggregates the types of claims that are most often erroneously obstructed by the IDEA’s exhaustion clause and then creates a framework that would allow courts to analyze and correctly apply the exhaustion clause. In doing so, it hopes to remove these laws from the IDEA’s shadow and renew their promise of equal access to educational opportunity.

An Overview of Inclusive Education in the United States

2012 ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mokter Hossain
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Special Education ◽  
Public Education ◽  
General Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
The United States ◽  
Significant Disabilities ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Child Centered ◽  
Education Act

Being a country of diversity, the United States has had a long tradition of research and practices in special education in the form of inclusion. Since passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975, now referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, a free appropriate public education has been available to all children with disabilities. However, inclusion of students with disabilities into general education classrooms has taken decades to be considered appropriate practice. Controversies, research, and legislation have shaped a collaborative relationship between general and special education. A wide range of political, epistemological, and institutional factors have facilitated a more child-centered public education. This chapter presents an overview of current issues and practices in the inclusion of students with disabilities in the U.S. The topics include: historical background; public laws that led to successful inclusion; categories and prevalence, and identification strategies; and inclusion practices for students with mild-to-moderate and selective significant disabilities for providing them equal and appropriate educational experiences in the mainstream classrooms.

The Supreme Court Has Spoken

2019 ◽  
pp. 600-614
Author(s):  
Thomas Hehir
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Educational Opportunity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Community Schools ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Education Of Students

Two 2017 decisions of the United States Supreme Court could powerfully impact the education of students with disabilities. Frye v. Napoleon Community Schools (2017) addressed whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) entitled a student with physical disabilities to use a service dog in school. Endrew v. Douglas County School District (2017) addressed whether a child with autism was denied a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) within the meaning of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Taken together these cases underscore core principles in both statutes. The Endrew decision clarifies that the fundamental entitlement in IDEA of FAPE is a substantive one requiring schools to offer an individualized education plan (IEP) that is “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” The Frye decision clarifies that the ADA applies to school-age children when discrimination, not FAPE, is at issue. The chapter cautions against over reliance on court decisions alone to improve educational opportunity for students with disabilities and proposes reforms that seek to improve the capacity of schools to provide improved educational opportunity for students with disabilities.

An Overview of Inclusive Education in the United States

2013 ◽  
pp. 86-110
Author(s):  
Mokter Hossain
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Special Education ◽  
Public Education ◽  
General Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
The United States ◽  
Significant Disabilities ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Child Centered ◽  
Education Act

Being a country of diversity, the United States has had a long tradition of research and practices in special education in the form of inclusion. Since passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975, now referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, a free appropriate public education has been available to all children with disabilities. However, inclusion of students with disabilities into general education classrooms has taken decades to be considered appropriate practice. Controversies, research, and legislation have shaped a collaborative relationship between general and special education. A wide range of political, epistemological, and institutional factors have facilitated a more child-centered public education. This chapter presents an overview of current issues and practices in the inclusion of students with disabilities in the U.S. The topics include: historical background; public laws that led to successful inclusion; categories and prevalence, and identification strategies; and inclusion practices for students with mild-to-moderate and selective significant disabilities for providing them equal and appropriate educational experiences in the mainstream classrooms.

scholarly journals Free Appropriate Public Education, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Developing and Implementing Individualized Education Programs

Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Michael Rozalski ◽  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
Jacob Warner
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Public Education ◽  
Education Program ◽  
Individualized Education ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Substantive Content ◽  
State Education ◽  
Education Agency ◽  
Education Act

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.

Moving beyond Brown: Race and Education After Parents v. Seattle School District No. 1

2011 ◽  
Vol 113 (4) ◽  
pp. 735-754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamel K. Donnor
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
School District ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Students Of Color ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Community Schools ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Educational Advancement ◽  
Quality Learning ◽  
The U.S

Background By a 5–4 margin, the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 declared that voluntary public school integration programs were unconstitutional. Citing the prospective harm that students and their families might incur from being denied admission to the high school of their choice, the Supreme Court declared that the plaintiffs, Parents Involved in Community Schools (PICS), had a valid claim of injury by asserting a interest in not being forced to compete for seats at certain high schools in a system that uses race as a deciding factor in many of its admissions decisions. Purpose The goal of the article is to discuss how conceptions of harm and fairness as articulated in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 privilege the self-interests of White students and families over the educational needs of students of color. Research Design This article is a document analysis. Conclusions By referencing the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision of 1954 (Brown I) to buttress its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that programmatic efforts to ensure students of color access to quality learning environments are inherently ominous. The dilemma moving forward for policy makers and scholars concerned with the educational advancement of students of color is not to develop new ways to integrate America's public schools or reconcile the gaps in the Supreme Court's logic, but rather to craft programs and policies for students of color around the human development and workforce needs of the global economy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document