Free Appropriate Public Education Research Articles

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.

Applied Behavior Analysis, Students With Autism, and the Requirement to Provide a Free Appropriate Public Education

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.

The Responsible Inclusion of Students Receiving Special Education Services for Emotional Disturbance: Unraveling the Practice to Research Gap.

The majority of students receiving special education services for emotional disturbance (ED) receive a significant amount of instruction in general education classrooms, which emphasizes curriculums based on college and career readiness standards. In turn, those teachers who provide instruction to students with ED in inclusive settings are responsible for using evidence-based practices (EBPs) for those teaching situations in which they exist to meet free appropriate public education (FAPE) mandates. However, the identification of EBPs is a necessary pre-condition to eventual school adoption and teacher use of such practices. In this investigation, we completed a synthesis of syntheses to (a) determine the degree to which academic intervention research has focused on students with ED in general education classrooms and (b) identify practices that are effective at improving the academic performance of students with ED in these settings. Overall, few studies were identified. Of those studies identified, half did not disaggregate outcomes for students with ED. A quality indicator coding based on the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) design standards revealed that no studies with disaggregated outcomes permitted causal inferences. Implications for school practice and areas for future research are discussed.

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

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.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): The U.S. Supreme Court and Special Education

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.

Failure to Implement the IEP: The Third Dimension of FAPE Under the IDEA

After distinguishing the development of “failure to implement” (FTI) the individualized education program (IEP) as a third dimension beyond the procedural and substantive dimensions of FAPE (free appropriate public education) first established in Board of Education v. Rowley, this article provides a comprehensive yet concise synthesis of the three approaches to FTI. More specifically, the first section summarizes the materiality/benefit approach, which—like the two-step approach for procedural violations but on a more intertwined basis—requires both a substantial, or significant, FTI and an insufficient benefit. The second section traces the materiality-alone approach, which requires only a substantial failure. The third section demarcates the per se approach, which finds a denial of FAPE for any FTI beyond one that is clearly de minimis or negligible. After a summary overview, the final section advocates the per se approach as the appropriate policy, whether as a matter of Congressional or judicial adoption.

Mental Health Services, Free Appropriate Public Education, and Students With Disabilities: Legal Considerations in Identifying, Evaluating, and Providing Services

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.

Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Cases on the Free Appropriate Public Education(FAPE) for Children with Disabilities

Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Cases on the Free Appropriate Public Education(FAPE) for Children with Disabilities

Special Education Law

Intended as professional development for both new and experienced special educators, this article provides both the basic requirements and nuanced issues for foundational, successive, and overlapping key components under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): (a) child find, (b) eligibility, and (c) free appropriate public education (FAPE). The introductory section identifies ensuing IDEA components along with relatively recent references for each of them. Next, the section for each component includes the pertinent IDEA statutory provisions or regulations, the basic criteria, one or more nuanced issues, and illustrative court decisions of recent vintage. This treatment shows that the key components are not mutually exclusive, scientifically or professionally precise, or clearly uniform in their case law interpretations and applications. The concluding section offers suggestions for teacher educators for improving the relevant and useful legal knowledge of future special educators. It also provides the culminating message that maintaining current legal literacy is challenging but useful within the larger context and primary purpose of achieving effective results for students with disabilities via communication and collaboration with parents.

Assistive Technology: Legislation and Legal Issues

Developing special education programs that confer a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities has been a challenge for local education agencies since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was first passed in 1975. Developing a FAPE has been particularly challenging when students require assistive technology (AT) services or devices to meet their unique educational needs. In this article, we consider how students' individualized education program (IEP) planning teams have met this challenge by examining administrative and judicial rulings on the use of AT services and devices by students' with disabilities. Specifically, we first examine rulings from 2005 to the first half of 2013 regarding the IDEA, FAPE, and AT. Second, we explore how courts have interpreted the AT obligations of educational agencies with a focus on cases in which parents were the prevailing party. Primary reasons for school district losses in these cases include failing to: (a) provide AT assessments (b) address AT needs, (c) provide the AT devices or services specified in a student's IEP, (d) properly implement AT services. We end by discussing the implications of these court decisions for school districts use of AT services and devices with students in special education.

How Building Principals Made Sense of Free and Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment

Confusion among school leaders regarding how to interpret and implement special education legislation, and specific federal and state policies and mandates such as a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), in the least restrictive environment (LRE) at the school-site level has existed since the 1970s and continues to exist. This metasynthesis explores the literature surrounding sensemaking by which building principals adapt and transform policy as they enact it in their schools. Findings suggest that a phenomenon of internal forces had a more significant influence on the actions that took place throughout their sensemaking of LRE and FAPE.

Critical Issues in the Identification of Gifted Students With Co-Existing Disabilities

Federal law ensures all students with disabilities the right to a Free, Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). However, current policies governing a student’s eligibility for services may contribute to the underidentification of gifted children with co-existing disabilities—the Twice-Exceptional. The emphasis on below-grade-level (or lower) performance, without regard to ability or potential weaknesses, misses twice-exceptional students. Those who perform at grade level, by using advanced conceptual abilities and hard work to compensate, may still require interventions and accommodations to manage increasing educational demands. Otherwise, college and even high school graduation may be out of reach. This article reviews changing laws and policies, explores case studies of twice-exceptional students missed, and examines the diagnosis of twice-exceptionality through comprehensive assessment. Appropriate best practices for the identification of twice-exceptional learners, maintenance of their civil rights, and provision of FAPE are offered for educators, parents, advocates, and legislators as federal, state, and district laws/policies evolve.

Autism litigation: Outcomes for 2010, trends in decision making and changes in diagnostic criteria

The diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder has systematically risen since Kanner's description in 1943 and Asperger's definition in 1944. An increase in numbers has met with an increase in litigation regarding autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). Outcomes that first favored parents (2002-2004) have moved to outcomes favoring school districts. The authors update the reader on case outcomes for 2010 and discuss how pending changes in legislation and diagnostic criteria may impact navigation through the education system as individuals seek a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE).

Chartering the Way to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE): The Challenges for Charter Schools to Provide FAPE

Charter schools are publicly funded schools that are an integral part of the school choice movement, following a market-model of education based on autonomy, competition, and choice. However, charter schools are also mandated to adhere to all laws and regulations in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when educating students with disabilities. The education of students with disabilities within the charter school environment can result in policy tensions. This paper will examine the salient issues surrounding special education as it pertains to the state, authorizer, and operator in the areas of transparency, processes, and outcomes.

The Legal Aspects of Bullying and Harassment of Students with Disabilities: School Leaders’ Legal Obligations

Research demonstrates that students with disabilities are harassed more than their nondisabled peers. Students with disabilities who have been severely harassed have argued that they are not receiving a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) as required by Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). A school district's failure to respond to known acts of harassment could result in district liability. In addition to IDEA, Title II of the American's with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) also prohibit school districts from discriminating against students with disabilities. Employing traditional legal research methods, this paper examines the legal issues surrounding the bullying and harassment of students with disabilities. Legal cases involving disability-based harassment under the IDEA, the ADA, and Section 504 will be coded to determine implications for schools leaders. It is hoped that school leaders will gain a better perspective on disability law and their school's antibullying/harassment policy in order to minimize litigation and more importantly to provide a socially just public schooling environment for all students.

New Regulations Affect Early Intervention Clinicians

New Regulations Affect Early Intervention Clinicians

Complacency With Access and the Aggregate? Affirming an Individual Determination of Educational Benefit Under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act

Although some legal scholars argue that the progression of Congressional intent in laws for children with disabilities reflects a mission to raise the educational standards and their achievement levels, other insist that many students are not realizing equal educational opportunity and not receiving educational benefit. This article proposes that the alignment of the Individuals with disabilities Education Act (IDEA) with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act may implicate a student’s right to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) and cautions against complacency with mere access to the general curriculum and a satisfaction with aggregate accountability of outcome. An analysis of litigation from circuit courts is presented to confirm individual benefit as the legal standard of appropriateness, and the duties of IEP teams to monitoring individual progress on IEP goals are defined. Two recommendations for the reauthorization of both the NCLB Act and the IDEA are proposed.

Editorial: Waist Deep in the Big Muddy: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) The first iteration of IDEA, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, passed more than 35 years ago, had several positive elements. Key among these was the concept of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for all children, regardless of the extent of the The establishment of an Individualized Education Plan (???) has had an even more far-reaching impact. Under the guidelines of IDEA, along with parents, professionals with appropriate knowledge and expertise, develop IEPs to meet the unique educational needs of children diagnosed as disabled in one of the thirteen federal categories. In recent years approximately six and a half million American children, or 12% of the total public school enrollment, receive educational services developed through IEPs. The mandate for education in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is the major provision that has caused the most confusion and controversy, especially, but not entirely, in the field of education of the deaf. Although there have been attempts, the term has never been defined over the past 35 years to everyone's satisfaction. In general, it has been interpreted to mean that educational placement of a disabled student contiguous to nondisabled peers is preferable to the greatest extent possible. Readers of the Annals are aware of the opposing view that educational placement of deaf children with other deaf children in many instances can increase communication and access to information more efficiently than immersion in a completely hearing environment. From this perspective placement of deaf students with other deaf students constitutes the least restrictive environment. However, because the classification Deaf and Hard of Hearing is one of the 13 federal disability categories, the impact of the mainstreaming/inclusion model interpretation of LRE has been significant. For a number of reasons, educational placement of deaf students had been moving away from residential and center schools since shortly after World War II, but it is undeniable that the LRE provision of IDEA has speeded up the process. In short, the subsumption of education of deaf students under the IDEA umbrella led to a loss of independence in our field, making it more difficult to address the unique needs of deaf students. In some ways the outcome to date has been positive. For example, our educational programs to a large extent were too narrow, concentrating on speech, English, and grammar to the detriment of math, science, social studies, and literature. There has been an important change in emphasis to adapt regular education curricula, especially with the knowledge that many, perhaps a majority, of our children will find themselves in different educational environments. Quite simply, our expectations were too low. On the other hand, we are in danger of losing our identity and being swallowed up within the far larger population of children classified as disabled. The federal government has identified approximately 70,000 deaf and hard of hearing children served under IDEA, slightly more than one child in a hundred with an 1ER If we assume one-half of these students would have severe or profound hearing loss, perhaps one child in 200 children with an IEP is deaf. Two categories - Learning Disabilities and Speech and Language Disorders - constitute the majority of disabled children under IDEA. They receive the type of attention due to them for their numbers; the parameters for them for LRE, for example, are different than they are for deaf students. If regulations for inclusion and for other elements of an IEP are based on majorities, the implications for deaf students may be of concern. Although I know that IEPs, by definition, are individualized, I also know they can be generated by computer. In sum, I think that IDEA has been a mixed blessing for deaf students. Our expectations and curricula are better, but our children may be overlooked and they may not be getting the specialized services they need. …

IDEA Requirements for Children with Disabilities in Faith-Based Schools: Implications for Practice

Although public schools have both the obligation and ability to provide free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for all children and youth with disabilities enrolled in public schools, their obligation does not end there. Children with disabilities enrolled by their parents in private schools do have certain rights to services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and it is expected that public schools will engage in meaningful consultation with private school officials and parents to ensure that those rights are met. In that light, this article summarizes specific requirements of IDEA for students enrolled in private schools, with an emphasis on those students enrolled in faith-based schools, and changes introduced in IDEA 2004. Although it is clear that the extent to which IDEA does apply to children in private schools is limited, there are clear implications for the amount of federal flow-through funds that are available for the provision of special education services to this group of students. Specific suggestions for cooperation between public schools and private school personnel are suggested, with the goal of maximizing the IDEA benefits for children with disabilities in private schools.