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.

The Four Faces of a Free Appropriate Public Education

2021 ◽  
pp. 105345122110326
Author(s):  
Perry A. Zirkel
Keyword(s):  
Public Education ◽  
Education Program ◽  
Individualized Education Program ◽  
Individualized Education ◽  
Individuals With Disabilities ◽  
Professional Orientation ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
Empirical Analyses

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.

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.

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.

Provision of Related Services for Children With Chronic Disabilities

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 92 (6) ◽  
pp. 879-881
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Children With Disabilities ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Speech Pathology ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Provision Of Services ◽  
Education Act

Since 1975 all children with disabilities specifically delineated by law have had available to them "a free, appropriate public education that includes special education and related services to meet their unique needs." This access has been made possible by the passage of Public Law 94-142,1 The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. This law was amended in October 1990 with passage of Public Law 101-476, The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Part B of Public Law 101-476 primarily details the identification and provision of services for children with disabilities. Unfortunately, the implementation of Part B of this law has been limited for many children by a number of significant and complex issues. The term "related services" as currently defined in Part B of the IDEA includes the following: ... transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services (including speech pathology and audiology, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation and social work services, and medical and counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, except that such medical services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes only) as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education. Health care providers frequently view the related services listed above as medically necessary and/or helpful for children with disabilities without the proviso that these services must be necessary for special education. This difference in perspective and interpretation by pediatricians and parents often leads to misunderstandings, frustrations, conflicts, and problems in the development and implementation of related services within school programs for children with disabilities.

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.

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.

Free Appropriate Public Education and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School System (2017): Implications for Personnel Preparation

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
David F. Bateman
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Preservice Teachers ◽  
Public Education ◽  
Personnel Preparation ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
District Personnel ◽  
Special Education Programs ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Definition Of

The purpose of this article is to examine the free appropriate public education (FAPE) requirements of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The authors first briefly examine the definition of FAPE in the IDEA. Second, they delve into the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Board of Education v. Rowley and Endrew F. v. Douglas and how these decisions have affected the definition of FAPE. They next address the procedural, substantive, and implementation errors school district personnel often make when developing students’ special education programs. They offer suggestions on how faculty members can prepare their preservice teachers to understand and avoid these errors and develop educationally meaningful and legally correct special education programs that confer a FAPE.

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.

Lessons Learned From a Descriptive Review of Rural Individualized Education Programs

2020 ◽  
pp. 002246692097267
Author(s):  
Brittany L. Hott ◽  
Beth Ashby Jones ◽  
Kathleen M. Randolph ◽  
Emily Kuntz ◽  
John W. McKenna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Progress Monitoring ◽  
Functional Performance ◽  
Individualized Education Program ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Individualized Education ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Regulatory Standards

Students who are eligible for special education and related services are entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), which is delineated by the Individualized Education Program (IEP). The purpose of this descriptive study was to examine 133 IEPs from seven rural districts that were interested in evaluating their compliance with state and federal special education regulations. The researchers evaluated (a) the present level of academic and functional performance (PLAAFP), (b) IEP goals, (c) PLAAFP and goal alignment, and (d) progress monitoring. Fewer than 7% of the IEPs examined included PLAAFP statements, goals, and contingencies for progress monitoring that met regulatory standards. The majority of IEPs (74%) evaluated did not provide complete statements of how a student’s disability affected school performance. Methods for quantitative progress monitoring were also frequently absent from the documents (23%). Furthermore, the PLAAFP, goals, and progress monitoring were often unaligned. Implications for school practice and areas for future research are reported.

Provision of Related Services for Children with Chronic Disabilities

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 796-797
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Program Planning ◽  
Individual Education Plan ◽  
Speech Pathology ◽  
Supportive Services ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Handicapped Children ◽  
Physician’S Role ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Physician's Role

The term "related services" is defined in Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, as follows: . . . related services means transportation, and such developmental, corrective and other supportive services (including speech pathology and audiology, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, and medical and counseling services, except that such medical services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes only) as may be required to assist a handicapped child to benefit from special education, and includes the early identification and assessment of handicapping conditions in children. Under PL 94-142, all handicapped children are to have available to them "a free, appropriate, public education which includes special education and related services to meet their unique needs." Such services are to be provided at no cost to the child or family in conformity with an Individual Education Plan. PROBLEMS In the implementation of PL 94-142, the physician's role in providing related services has been narrowly defined as meaning: . . . services provided by a licensed physician to determine a child's medically related handicapping condition which results in the child's needs for special education and related services. This definition fails to recognize the physician's potential role in the supervision, program planning, medical management, and monitoring process. According to the definition, the physician's role in the delivery of related services has become limited to diagnosis. Little physician input is sought on treatment-related issues. As a result, the delivery and coordination of related services have posed a serious problem.1,2

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document