Free Appropriate Public Education Research Articles

Challenges Posed During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: Implications for Special Education Teachers

The COVID-19 pandemic affected the ways in which school districts provide educational services to all students, especially students with disabilities. Eligible students with disabilities have a right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and students with disabilities who are not eligible under the IDEA may also have a right to receive a FAPE under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. School personnel need to attend to both of these important federal laws when providing educational services. Shortly after the pandemic began, the U.S. Department of Education, through the Office of Civil Rights and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, issued guidance to school districts making it clear that despite school closures, school district personnel had to continue providing FAPE under the IDEA and Section 504. Following the return to school, the Office of Civil Rights investigated the Los Angeles Unified School District in California and the Fairfax County Schools for discriminating against students with disabilities by failing to provide educational services during the pandemic. In this article, we briefly review the guidance from the U.S. Department of Education and discuss important implications for teachers of students with disabilities.

Clarifying the Free Appropriate Public Education Standard Post-Endrew for School Leaders

All the federal laws and policies relating to individuals with disabilities aim to achieve four major goals: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. The free appropriate public education (FAPE) plays an integral role in contributing to achieving these goals. The purpose of this paper was to obtain more understanding of the meaning of FAPE for students with disabilities especially after the case of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District in Colorado in 2017. It is significant for administrators and teachers understand the ruling in Endrew because this decision will critically affect special education programs. Several implications for school leaders after the case of Endrew.

Indicators of Progress in the Wake of Endrew F.: The Distinction Between Professional Recommendations and Judicial Rulings

The central obligation under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act is to provide each eligible student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court revised the prior substantive standard for determining FAPE that the court had developed in Board of Education v. Rowley (1982). The Endrew F. court modified the Rowley standard of requiring the individualized education program (IEP) to be reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit to requiring a student's IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the student to “make progress appropriate in light of the student's circumstances.” The purpose of this article is to compare what the post– Endrew F. courts use with what the professional literature recommends as measures of appropriate progress. The results inform special education practitioners about the significant discrepancy between the courts’ focus on the “must” of legal requirements and the “should” of professional recommendations. The discussion suggests ways that special education professionals can use their expertise to inform courts and legislatures to narrow this gap for the benefit of more effective progress for students with disabilities.

Describing the Inclusiveness of Students with Disabilities in Iowa School-based Agricultural Education Programs

Creating an inclusive and welcoming environment for all students with disabilities within school-based agricultural education (SBAE) is important to ensure students receive opportunities. This study explored the experiences that SBAE teachers associated with providing special education and related services for students with disabilities in all aspects of SBAE programs (i.e., classroom instruction, FFA membership, and Supervised Agricultural Experience [SAE] programs). Nine SBAE teachers from various career phases participated in semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions. Three main themes emerged from the interviews: communication, inclusiveness for a complete program, and transfer of responsibility for provided services. Future research should take a deeper look into the issue of providing free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities in SBAE programs. Additionally, future research needs to occur on each component (classroom, SAE, and FFA) of SBAE to ensure students with disabilities are being included to the fullest potential or what resources could be provided to assist educators.

Hard LRE Choices in the Era of Inclusion: Rights and Their Implications

Rights of students are often misunderstood. Civil rights of minorities granted by the U.S. Supreme Court are confused with human rights of individuals with disabilities granted by the U.S. Congress. Federal law applying to the education of individuals with disabilities requires that difficult decisions be made by families and schools regarding how to address four different and interrelated provisions of Public Law 94-142 of 1975 (now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 or IDEA): (a) a free, appropriate public education (FAPE), (b) an Individualized Education Program (IEP), (c) placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE), and (d) a full continuum of alternative placements (CAP). Special attention is given to LRE because the full inclusion movement and other influences related to a portion of disability studies have made it the central issue in special education. Under the law, three hard-to-answer questions must be asked in all cases involving special education: (a) What is an appropriate special education for a particular student with a disability? (b) What is the LRE in which that most appropriate education can occur for that individual student? (c) What is the CAP related to that individualized appropriate education?

EASE-ing the Way for Pediatric Providers and Parents: The Engagement and Access to Special Education (EASE) Clinic.

The American Academy of Pediatrics tasks primary care providers (PCPs) with identifying and ensuring that children who need special education receive appropriate services through partnerships with parents, caregivers (eg, grandparents), and families (herein: parents) and school systems.1 This is no small task, since 7.1 million public school students received special education services through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) during the 2019-2020 school year.2 IDEA entitles children ages 3-21 years old to free appropriate public education (FAPE) through individualized education programs (IEPs).

Medical Marijuana Use: Considerations for a Free, Appropriate Public Education

In special education, medication often plays a critical role in meeting the needs of students with disabilities. The use of medications in schools, however, can be a problem when state laws and federal law conflict regarding the use of a medication, in this situation, medical marijuana. This column reports on a ruling by the U.S. District Court in New Mexico involving medical marijuana, in which state law in New Mexico and federal law conflicted. A short-term solution may be for school districts to consider home instruction as a means to ensure a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for qualified students with disabilities who need medical marijuana. A long-term solution may be to amend state laws, and the federal law (i.e., the Controlled Substances Act of 1970) that prohibits marijuana use, to allow the use and administration of medical marijuana in schools.

Provision of a Free and Appropriate Public Education in an Adult Jail during COVID-19: The Case of Charles H. et al. v. District of Columbia et al.

COVID-19 has engendered serious challenges with the provision of special education services for youth and young adults incarcerated in U.S. adult correctional facilities. This article describes the recent lawsuit, Charles H. et al. v. District of Columbia et al., which focused on the lack of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) at the Inspiring Youth Program (IYP) school in the Washington DC jail during the pandemic. Following a brief review of relevant components of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2006) regulations, we describe the three areas in which there were violations to the provision of IDEA and FAPE, as well as the harm incurred. Specifically, we discuss the lack of: (a) instruction and monitoring of youth academic progress; (b) related services (i.e., behavioral interventions and supports, counseling); and (c) DC public schools Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) supervision and oversight. Finally, we provide a discussion of the need for compensatory education to remediate harm.

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 are 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.

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.

Orton-Gillingham and the IDEA: analysis of the frequency and outcomes of case law.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act grants dissatisfied parents of students with disabilities the right to pursue legal remedies. In 2007, Rose and Zirkel found that parents of students with reading disabilities seeking Orton-Gillingham (OG) instruction under the IDEA's central obligation for a free appropriate public education (FAPE) were largely unsuccessful in their complaints. Since that review, various factors had the potential to influence the frequency and outcomes of OG-related case law-namely, the peer-reviewed research requirement of the IDEA and growing awareness of the need for specialized reading instruction. Our updated analysis of OG-related case law revealed an increase in the number of cases but similar district-favored outcomes identified by Rose and Zirkel. In particular, the relaxed substantive FAPE standard and deference to local and state authorities diminished the likelihood of parents prevailing in their requests. Implications for parents, school district personnel, special education professionals, and education researchers are presented.

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.

Are Students with Mathematics Learning Disabilities Receiving FAPE?: Insights from a Descriptive Review of Individualized Education Programs

AbstractStudents with mathematics learning disability (MLD) are entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as outlined by their Individualized Education Program (IEP). The IEP is a roadmap to enhance in‐school and postschool outcomes for students with a disability. We reviewed IEPs (n = 89) for secondary students with MLD enrolled in 15 rural independent school districts in the southeast part of the United States. Results suggested secondary students with MLD have needs in (a) calculation; (b) fractions, decimals, and percentages; (c) functional mathematics; (d) reading; and (e) social and behavioral skills based on annual goals written in their IEPs. Yet 70% of the IEPs reviewed included only instruction in the general education setting, without specialized services. IEPs included a variety of accommodations, but few goals facilitated access to grade‐level content or special education services to support specialized instruction to meet goals. Implications for practice, limitations, and future research are discussed.

Teacher Readiness in Adapted Physical Education: Teaching the “Able,” Not the “Label”

The majority of physical education teacher education (PETE) programs include some form of adapted physical education (APE) training for preservice teachers; yet PETE candidates report feeling underprepared to teach individuals with disabilities. The number of students with disabilities included in general education continues to grow, in accordance with inclusion legislation, particularly free appropriate public education (FAPE) and least restrictive environment (LRE). The aim of this article is to present a template or overview of the essential topics and methods that should be included in an APE course for PETE candidates.

Reflecting on the Education Position Statement of AAIDD and The Arc

AbstractThis article expands on 10 critical actions within the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) and The Arc's 2018 joint position statement on the right of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) to have a free and appropriate public education (FAPE): (a) zero reject; (b) nondiscriminatory and comprehensive eligibility evaluations and appropriate assessments; (c) high expectations and FAPE; (d) autonomy, self-determination, and decision-making supports; (e) inclusion and least restrictive environments (LRE); (f) safe and supportive education environments; (g) school choice; (h) family and student participation; (i) lifelong education, transition, and postsecondary education; and (j) system capacity development, funding, oversight, and accountability. Research findings documenting positive outcomes associated with implementing each area of action are described and relevant legal mandates and case law are discussed. Recommendations are made for changes to educational systems and practices that create barriers to the access of FAPE for students with IDD.

A Conceptual Framework: Creating Socially Just Schools for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities

Students with emotional and behavioral disabilities (EBD) are among the most marginalized group of students in ourschools. In essence, students with EBD are often denied their civil right to a free and appropriate public education(FAPE) which is a social justice issue. Teachers who become social justice allies are more likely to create a sociallyjust school when they promote the implementation of multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) throughevidence-based practices (EBP) for positive behavior interventions and supports through a social justice lens.Implementing these interventions while being social justice allies in socially just schools offer the best opportunityfor students with EBD to receive an equitable and socially just education in schools thereby achieving social justiceregarding their civil right to a FAPE.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): Implications for Educating Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled on a special education case Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. In this important case, the High Court addressed the degree of educational benefit necessary for a school district to fulfill the requirements for a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The ruling was especially meaningful for the field of emotional and behavioral disorders, because the plaintiff in this case, Endrew F., exhibited serious academic difficulties and behavior problems. In this article, I first analyze the IDEA’s definition of FAPE and the importance of addressing students’ behavior problems in their individualized education programs (IEPs) to provide a FAPE. Second, I examine the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Endrew decision, specifically addressing the impact of the school district’s failure to address a student’s behaviors in his IEP. Third, I discuss the implications of the Endrew ruling for developing and implementing IEPs for students with serious behavior problems. I end by advocating for changes in the upcoming reauthorization of the IDEA to bring the law into conformity with the spirit and letter of this important ruling.

Are Rural Students Receiving FAPE? A Descriptive Review of IEPs for Students With Social, Emotional, or Behavioral Needs.

Students who are eligible to receive special education and related services are entitled to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) including the necessary emotional, behavioral, and social supports to access the general curriculum. This study explores Individualized Education Program (IEP) plans of students with disabilities who have social, emotional, or behavioral needs served in five rural independent school districts. Specifically, the study sought to investigate (a) whether the present level of academic and functional performance (PLAAFP) and annual goals demonstrated congruence and (b) whether the degree to which the IEP documents conform to both procedural and substantive requirements for development. A review of 126 IEPs suggests that although IEPs are somewhat compliant, they fail to comprehensively address student needs or align across areas, violating the spirit of Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. Recommendations and future areas of inquiry are provided.

The Erosion of FAPE for Students with LD

AbstractHow schoolsfulfill Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) requirements has evolved. Decades of general and special education reforms have led to dramatic increases in expectations for students in special education to be included in the general education classroom and curriculum and to achieve to the same high standards as their general education peers. Students with learning disabilities (LD) in particular are impacted by these reforms. The notion of their individually‐appropriate education has been slowly eroded as limitations in special education practices and the goals of education reform have been responded to. As special education intentions and practices advance, stakeholders have a responsibility to protect the FAPE of students with LD, to ensure meeting these students’ individualized learning needs.