Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article examines a critical question for the special education community: What should be the current meaning of “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) in light of not only the Supreme Court's landmark Rowley decision in 1982 but also developments in the 30 years since then? After synthesizing what the Rowley Court, the scholar-commentators, and the post-Rowley lower courts have said, the author examines the latest answer from Congress via the 2004 Individuals With Disabilities Education Act amendments. Particular attention is paid to the provision concerning peer-reviewed research and the recent case law interpreting this provision. The author suggests that the time is ripe for the special education community to help Congress fashion an appropriately heightened substantive or at least procedural standard for FAPE.

Special education is the most highly litigated area within the field of education. Therefore, the purpose of the current article is to highlight cases (court decisions, Office of Civil Rights rulings, and State Educational Agency hearings) involving students with disabilities in 2015. Highlights from the case law point to the need for school districts to ensure that students with disabilities are provided free appropriate public education, ensure timely and comprehensive evaluations once a suspected disability is of concern, ensure that students with autism have access to an range of services, provide evidence in factors considered when determining placement, remove students only when they present imminent threat to self or others, and appropriately address bullying/harassment instances.

This study analyzed the 65 hearing officer decisions in Illinois between 1982 and 2010 that were subject to a court appeal available in the Westlaw or Individuals With Disabilities Education Law Report (IDELR) databases. These 65 cases yielded 86 issue rulings. Based on refined measures of outcomes and deference, or standard of judicial review, for issue rulings as the unit of analysis, the principal findings were that (a) outcomes were skewed in favor of districts at both the hearing/review officer and court levels; (b) the outcome upon judicial appeal was the same or largely unchanged for the vast majority of the issue rulings; and (c) the standard of judicial review did not appear to be a major factor in relation to the final court outcome.

In 2017, the Supreme Court in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 clarified the substantive FAPE standard for the first time in 35 years. This dissertation used interdisciplinary legal research methods to understand how federal courts and district representatives in a large, urban school district have interpreted the recent changes in special education law. Part 1 is a doctrinal legal analysis of case law applying the substantive FAPE standard from 2015–2018. Part 2 is a qualitative legal analysis of the socially constructed realities of law experienced by special education professionals. Part 3 is a critical policy analysis of the social practices of power in IEP meetings by local actors in the school district.This dissertation provided a critical reflection on the interpretations of the substantive FAPE standard by internal (e.g. judges and lawyers) and external (e.g. educators and families) actors. Thus far, federal courts have interpreted the changes in Endrew F. narrowly. While they acknowledged that Endrew F. raised the minimum threshold for progress, they have not read the decision as requiring a higher maximum threshold for progress. Moreover, federal courts found 88.4% of plaintiffs’ IEPs to be substantively appropriate, which reflects an 8:1 pro-district outcome ratio and suggests courts strongly defer to the educational expertise of school authorities when determining whether a substantive FAPE was provided. However, district representatives reported significant gaps in their understanding of special education law and did not articulate a clear standard for determining appropriate progress. Furthermore, district data disaggregated by geographic region revealed an inequitable distribution of related services and legal remedies for students with disabilities based on racial/ethnic demographics, socioeconomic status, and disability classification.

June 22, 2007, was the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (hereafter Rowley; 1982). In Rowley, the Supreme Court interpreted congressional intent in requiring that public schools provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This ruling--which is arguably the most important special education decision by the high court--has had a profound effect on the education of students with disabilities. In this article, the authors reflect on the importance of this decision and discuss how changes in IDEA in the 1997 and 2004 reauthorizations have changed the definition of a FAPE. First, the authors briefly review passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975. Second, they examine the facts of the Rowley case and the Supreme Court's ruling. Third, they look at some court cases following Rowley, which interpreted the meaning of the Supreme Court's ruling. Fourth, they consider the effects of IDEA 1997 and 2004 on the meaning of FAPE. Finally, they discuss principles that school districts should follow when developing individualized education programs (IEPs) that provide a FAPE for students with disabilities.

This article presents a due process hearing case study of a mother who contended that his son, D.J., has been denied of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) of his School District after being suspended from school. D.J., an elementary student, had been described as hyperactive, inattentive, defiant, and often volatile. He was identified by the school counselor as having \"a behavior problems so out of control that his presence threatened the safety of the other students.\" After a particularly violent incident that sent D.J. and another boy to the hospital, D.J. was suspended. His mother argued that the District failed to evaluate and program appropriately her son's behavioral and learning disabilities and that it restricted his access to education for an excessive period. The District contended that suspending D.J. was justifiable, and that a suitable alternative school for D.J. had been identified, but the mother failed to cooperate. However, after a thorough study, the hearing officer determined that it was clearly a denial of FAPE; the student is entitled to compensatory education equal to the period of deprivation.

Ben is a 16-year-old student who resides with his family in an unnamed School District. He is eligible for special education by reason of specific learning disability and ADHD. His parents requested a due process hearing, alleging that the District failed to provide him with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and requesting reimbursement for private school tuition. This article discusses the history of Ben's case, its hearing, and the decision made by the court on his case.

Greg is 13 years old, and currently in seventh grade; he entered an unnamed District (\"the District\") school in fourth grade as a student with a specific learning disability; he had been identified as eligible for special education programming and services during second grade. During fifth and sixth grade Greg was provided services through a resource teacher for his learning disabilities, most notably for his problems with language arts and math. During sixth grade his behavioral difficulties resulted in him spending the last 6 weeks of the school year in an alternative education placement. Because of his behavior difficulties, the District sought to classify Greg as emotionally disturbed and sought a placement other than the resource room for students with learning disabilities. The issue presented at the due process hearing was the appropriateness of the District's proposed placement in a full-time classroom for students with emotional disturbance. Greg's parents opposed the proposed placement, wanting him retained in his neighborhood school with additional support. This article discusses the history of Greg's case and the decision made by the court.

Special education disputes continue to be a daily concern for public school administrators, a source of anxiety for parents, and a growth industry for attorneys. The filing of a civil suit acknowledges a failure to resolve disputes in local and state administrative forums. To proceed to court represents a significant step in terms of public and parental resources and relationships. Tracking a sample of court cases through the administrative and judicial venues, this study recorded wins and losses at each level in relation to various factors, including the deference accorded by judges to the earlier administrative proceedings. While district wins exceeded parent wins in due process hearings and appeals, the margin narrowed through litigation. The most predominant issue in dispute was placement in terms of parents seeking more restrictive settings. Although ambiguous, the Supreme Court's language in Board of Education v. Rowley (458 U.S. 176, 1982) concerning deference guided court outcomes. Success rates provide useful insights to parents and school districts as they address the special education question at the end of administrative hearings: to court or not to court.

In 1982 the U. S. Supreme Court held that an appropriate education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was one that was formulated in accordance with the Act's procedures and that conferred some educational benefit on students with disabilities. Initially, the lower courts applied this terminology strictly and approved any proposed individualized education program that conferred even minimal educational benefit. However, later courts began to take a more liberal approach and held that the educational-program must confer some meaningful benefit. A careful reading of the Supreme Court's 1982 decision indicates that this recent approach is consistent with Congress's and the Court's intent. The Court never intended to establish one test of appropriateness since it recognized that some flexibility was needed to determine what would be appropriate for a diverse population of students with disabilities.