A Way to Implement the Free Appropriate Public Education for Children with Disabilities under the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 205-226
Author(s):  
Young Ran Choi
2017 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 321-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela M. T. Prince ◽  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
Antonis Katsiyannis

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.


Author(s):  
Shawn S. Sidhu

Chapter 14 includes two cases involving the EAHCA, now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), that have heavily influenced the way public education is provided to school children with disabilities. Hendrick Hudson Board of Education v. Rowley helped to establish the requirements and limits of Individual Education Plans (IEP), a free academic service for any school child with a learning disability. Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, although specific to a child with spina bifida, helped to establish the medical care accommodations that a school must provide for a child with a physical disability.


Author(s):  
Shawn S. Sidhu

Chapter 14 includes two cases involving the EAHCA, now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), that have heavily influenced the way public education is provided to schoolchildren with disabilities. Hendrick Hudson Board of Education v. Rowley helped to establish the requirements and limits of Individual Education Plans (IEP), a free academic service for any school child with a learning disability. Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, although specific to a child with spina bifida, helped to establish the medical care accommodations that a school must provide for a child with a physical disability.


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 206-215
Author(s):  
Bradley S. Stevenson ◽  
Vivian I. Correa

The prevalence of autism has been steadily rising over the previous decades. The diverse ways in which the disorder manifests in students and the free and appropriate public education (FAPE) mandate of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that a student’s individualized education program (IEP) team tailor interventions to meet the unique educational needs of that student. Deciding on the most appropriate evidence-based intervention programs for students with autism can be complex. In fact, a frequent source of litigation is when families and school personnel disagree on the particular programming to be provided to students with autism. Often this litigation involves disagreement over the extent to which services should be based on the principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA). The purpose of this article is to review select case law to analyze how courts have ruled on whether schools must provide ABA services to meet FAPE requirement when families request those services, and to extrapolate implications for practice, including guidance to families and school personnel on how to work collaboratively to resolve conflicts surrounding ABA services.


2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-111
Author(s):  
Zach Rossetti ◽  
Meghan M. Burke ◽  
Kristina Rios ◽  
Javier I. Rivera ◽  
Kristen Schraml-Block ◽  
...  

Although parent involvement is a cornerstone of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), few individual parents of children with disabilities participate in civic engagement to voice their suggestions for the next IDEA reauthorization. To address this gap, a civic engagement training was conducted with 95 parents of children with disabilities across four states. At the end of the training, participants completed videotaped testimonials voicing their suggestions for the next IDEA reauthorization. Participant suggestions clustered around three themes: expanding IDEA to address specific concerns; adding text to provide specificity and clarity in IDEA; and implementing the current version of IDEA. Implications for research and policy are discussed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Perry A. Zirkel ◽  
Cathy Skidmore

Extending the scope of two exploratory single-state studies, this empirical analysis determined the extent and direction of the outcome change from the impartial hearing officer (IHO) decision to the final court decision for a national sample of cases under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Based on a random sample of 116 published court decisions from 1998 through 2016, the authors identified the rulings for “issue categories,” such as eligibility, free appropriate public education, and tuition reimbursement, in the final court decision and, via its published opinion, the preceding adjudicative levels down to the IHO. The primary finding for the 183 issue category rulings was that 70% had only slight or no change from the IHO to the final court level. Other findings included the following: (a) the net change was higher for states with a second administrative tier, which is a review officer, than for those with only the single tier of an IHO; (b) the net change was also higher for cases reaching the appellate rather than only the trial court level; and (c) the most frequent issue categories were free appropriate public education (55%) and tuition reimbursement (18%), both with a slight net outcome change in the district’s direction.


2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (07) ◽  
pp. 426-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian M. Kreisman ◽  
Andrew B. John

Background: In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142), and it has been revised and modified several times. At the time of this writing, this law was most recently amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647, December 3, 2004), which took effect on July 1, 2005. Colloquially the law is still referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Children with hearing loss or auditory processing disorder (APD) may qualify for services under IDEA. However, a review of the literature found no review of case law for such children. Purpose: This article provides a comprehensive review of case law involving the IDEA and children with hearing loss or APD from the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. courts of appeals. Research Design: We conducted a systematic review of case law. A LexisNexis search for cases involving IDEA and children with hearing loss or APDs was conducted. For the purpose of the present case review, all appellate decisions (cases accepted by the U.S. courts of appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court) were included if they found that the child had hearing loss or APD, regardless of the reason for the appeal under IDEA. In the instance of multiple cases that involved the same two parties, these cases are summarized together to provide the legal context. Brief explanations of IDEA and the federal judicial process as it pertains to IDEA disputes are presented. Following these explanations, a chronological review of IDEA appellate cases concerning students with hearing loss or APD is provided. Results: The IDEA cases reviewed focus on three main issues: placement of the child, methodology of teaching, and the provision of services. Conclusions: This case law review provides a helpful summary of higher court cases for educational audiologists and parents of children with hearing loss or APDs, as well as educators, individualized education program team members, school administrators, and legal representatives involved in IDEA cases.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document