Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Free Appropriate Public Education FAPE is a right that must be made available to all eligible students with disabilities Provided at public expense Provided in conformity with the IEP Meet state standards Includes students in disabilities who have been suspended or expelled Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Free Education No Exceptions Clarifications Without charge to parents only Applies only to special education & related services Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Appropriate Education What is appropriate must be decided on a case by case basis Must meet state standards Provided in conformity with IEP Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Public Education Meets state standards Includes children placed in private facilities by the school district If children are placed in private facilities the school must make a FAPE available Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Appropriate Education: A Process Child Find Protection in Evaluation Procedural Safeguards IEP process Meaningful Goals Placement in the LRE Parental involvement Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

FAPE must meet a student’s unique educational needs including: Mastery of academic subjects & basic skills Social , health, emotional, physical, & vocational needs Functional & self-help skills Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Board of Education v. Rowley 458,U.S. 176 (1982) Facts of the case: Amy Rowley Administrative rulings Federal District Court 2nd Circuit Court US Supreme Court Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

FAPE “We hold that the state satisfies the FAPE requirement by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educational from that instruction” Rowley p. 203-204 Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

The Rowley Twofold Inquiry Has the state complied with the procedures in the act? Amy’s school passed the procedural test Is the IEP reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits? Amy was passing from grade to grade Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Problem with Rowley Amy Rowley’s achievement status allowed the high court to sidestep prong two of the test The substantive standard The FAPE standard is satisfied when a school is following procedural requirements and writes an IEP that confers some educational benefit Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Subsequent FAPE Decisions Two circuit courts (4th and the 3rd) held that schools cannot meet their obligations under IDEA by providing a program that produces only trivial or De Minimus educational benefit The substantive right is “meaningful benefit” Meaningful benefit has to be decided individually for each student, no generic formula can be applied nor can a disabled child’s progress be compared to nondisabled children Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Polk v. Susquehanna ISD, 3rd Cir. 1988 FAPE can only be determined on an individual case by case basis IDEA calls for more than trivial benefit Does passing grades automatically constitute a FAPE? NO Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Cypress-Fairbanks ISD v. Michael F., 5th Circuit, 1997 Educational benefit means that the educational program must be likely to produce meaningful , not trivial, progress Four part test Was the program individualized on the basis of the student’s assessment? Was the program in the LRE? Were the services provided in a collaborative manner by key stakeholders? Were positive academic & nonacademic benefits demonstrated? Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Educational Methodology Disputes Rowley: methodology disputes are best left to educational experts, because such disputes exceed the expertise of the courts Courts grant schools great leeway in choosing educational methods Exemption-If school doesn’t provide a FAPE (meaningful progress) Courts: Educators need to select teaching methods that match a student’s unique needs Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Extended School Year Must be provided if needed for a FAPE Guidelines Flexibility Regression Recoupment Purpose of ESY is not to provide greater benefit Incorporated into the 1999 IDEA regulations Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

IDEA 1997, 2004 & FAPE The underlying theme of these reauthorizations was to improve the effectiveness of special education by requiring demonstrable improvements in the educational achievement and functional performance of students with disabilities Emphasis on writing measurable annual goals, explaining how they will be measured, them measuring them (progress monitoring), and reporting the results to parents Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Components of a FAPE Procedural Requirements Substantive Requirements Individualized Instruction Educational Benefit Progress toward IEP goals Related Services Least Restrictive Environment Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Violations of FAPE Inadequate evaluations Lack of knowledgeable persons in IEP team Not notifying or involving parents Determining placement prior to writing the IEP Inadequacies in the IEP The education will not confer “meaningful educational benefit” Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved