Adapted Physical Education: Meeting the Requirements of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that school districts provide eligible students with specially designed instruction that confers a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Depending on the unique needs of a student, FAPE may include physical education services. The IDEA also requires that a student’s individualized education program (IEP) include adapted physical education services, when deemed necessary to meet a student’s needs. In this paper we (a) define and compare physical education and adapted physical education, (b) examine the FAPE of the IDEA requirements regarding physical education and adapted physical education, (c) review a recent policy letter issued by the U.S Department of Education on adapted physical education, (d) highlight several court cases on adapted physical education for students with disabilities, and (e) offer guidance on when to include physical education and adapted physical education in students’ IEPs.

Profiles of Emotional Disturbance Across the Five Characteristics of the Federal Definition

Ensuring the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students qualified for services under the disability category of emotional disturbance (ED) has been both challenging and controversial. Examining this population in light of the five characteristics listed in the federal definition may provide useful insights to address needs and improve outcomes. The purpose of this study was to use latent class analysis to examine profiles across the five characteristics of the federal definition of ED for a sample of 491 students school-identified with ED. Key findings include that (a) students with ED comprise a heterogeneous group with distinct and qualitatively different subgroups; (b) latent classes representing the severe problems and the externalizing problems typologies tended to consist of younger students; (c) greater proportions of Black, Hispanic, and English-language learner students were found in the severe and externalizing latent classes; and (d) students in the externalizing and severe latent classes spent more time in special education classrooms and had worse ratings on social maladjustment. The findings highlight important implications for practice in regard to assessment, program differentiation, and preservice teacher training. Research limitations and directions for future research are also discussed.

The Four Faces of a Free Appropriate Public Education

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.

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

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 Lost Promise of Disability Rights

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.

Lessons Learned From a Descriptive Review of Rural Individualized Education Programs

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.

Free Appropriate Public Education in the Time of COVID-19

In the spring of 2020, public schools across the United States were forced to close their campuses due to an emerging public health crisis caused by the detection of the first cases of the COVID-19 virus. Although schools closed their buildings, the delivery of educational services did not stop. This included the ongoing provision of services mandated by federal law under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which establish educational protections, processes, and rights for students with disabilities and their families to ensure educational equity. In this article, we describe the potential legal implications of COVID-19 for schools, students with disabilities, and their families with a focus on challenges faced in rural areas. Strategies for mitigating legal impacts are described.

Inclusive Instruction for Students With Emotional/Behavioral Disorders: Service in the Absence of Intervention Research

Various stakeholders continue to have concerns regarding the school performance of students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). In an effort to improve student outcomes, schools may rely on improving student access to general education classrooms (e.g., inclusion). This trend occurs at a time when districts across the nation face heightened expectations regarding the provision of a free appropriate public education. Although federal policy emphasizes the use of research-based practices to improve student outcomes, there appears to be little research to inform decision-making when planning inclusive instruction for students with EBD. In the absence of intervention research, practitioners must largely rely on their professional judgment to operationalize inclusive instruction and monitor student response to inclusive instructional practices. This column summarizes relevant intervention research focusing on academic performance, makes recommendations for additional research to better inform school practice, and suggests practices to improve service delivery.

Providing Support for Rural Special Educators During Nontraditional Instruction: One State’s Response

In the midst of the COVID-19 global pandemic, teachers were forced to quickly determine how to deliver a free appropriate public education to their students when in-person instruction was not possible. School districts and states have a variety of ways to provide supports to their teachers. One method for providing technical assistance, professional development, consultation, and mentoring to teachers is through the use of regional cooperatives. In this Practice in Action article, two educational cooperative consultants present their experiences in supporting their teachers in the face of the pandemic. Successful strategies the cooperatives developed for teachers included providing trainings in online formats, creating an organized list of resources appropriate for online teaching, and facilitating opportunities for teachers to work together to problem solve in the era of the novel COVID-19. Challenges for teachers providing instruction for their students when schools were closed to face-to-face instruction are discussed.