Posted: September 20th, 2022

Assignment 5

Please look over the directions and read chapter 8 which I have attached. 

Assignment 5

How is FAPE important to you and your future endeavors of being a highly qualified educator for your students.

The Law and Special Education

Fifth Edition

Chapter 8

Free Appropriate Public Education

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

If this PowerPoint presentation contains mathematical equations, you may need to check that your computer has the following installed:
1) MathType Plugin
2) Math Player (free versions available)
3) NVDA Reader (free versions available)
1

Learning Objectives (1 of 2)
8.1 Describe the free appropriate public education (F A P E) mandate of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
8.2 Describe the components of a F A P E.
8.3 Describe the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Board of Education versus Rowley, 1982.
8.4 Describe the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Endrew F. versus Douglas County Board of Education, 2017
8.5 Describe peer-reviewed research and how it affects a student’s F A P E.

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Learning Objectives (2 of 2)
8.6 Describe the related services requirement of with F A P E
8.7 Describe methodology decisions and F A P E.
8.8 Describe placement decisions and F A P E.
8.9 Describe how a student’s graduation affects F A P E.
8.10 Describe how a failure to implement a student’s I E P may be a denial of F A P E.

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Introduction
“To meet its substantive obligation under the I D E A, a school must offer an I E P reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, Endrew F. versus Douglas County School District (2017, page 15)

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The F A P E Mandate of I D E A
Are provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge,
Meet standards of the State educational agency,
Include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the state involved, and
Are provided in conformity with the individualized education program.
(I D E A, 20 U.S.C. § 1401[a][18])

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Components of a F A P E
Free education
Public education
Appropriate education
State standards
Special education
Parent participation

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District versus Rowley (1982)
Facts of the case
“What is meant by the (E A H C A’s) requirement of a free appropriate public education?”
The Rowley two-part test
First, has the [school] complied with the procedures of the Act?
Second, is the individualized education program developed through the I D E A’s procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits?
The Supreme Court also ruled that students with disabilities do not have a right to the best possible education or an education that allows them to achieve their maximum potential. Rather, they are entitled to an education that is reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit.

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Post-Rowley Litigation
Procedural violations
Procedural violations only result in a denial of F A P E when such violations have (a) impeded a student’s right to a free appropriate public education, (b) impeded the parent’s participation in the decision-making process, or (c) deprived a student of educational benefits
Substantive Error
The second principle of the Rowley test—whether a student’s I E P is reasonably calculated to enable a student to receive educational benefits—has been a more difficult question for hearing officers and judges

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Split in the Circuits
The Higher Educational benefit standard
Meaningful benefit in the 3rd and 6th
The lower educational benefit standard
De minimis benefit in the 2nd, 4th,7th, 8th, 10th, & 11th
The split in the circuits made it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would hear a F A P E case

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Endrew F. versus Douglas County School District (2017)
Facts of the case
The question before the court: What is the level of educational benefit school districts must confer on children with disabilities to provide them with a free appropriate public education guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act?
The High Court vacated and remanded the case to the lower court to apply the Court’s new educational benefit standard: To meet its substantive obligation under the I D E A, an I E P must be reasonably calculated to enable a student to make progress appropriate in light of his or her circumstances

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Quotations from the Endrew F. Opinion
A substantive standard not focused on student progress would do little to remedy the pervasive and tragic academic stagnation that prompted Congress to act” in 1975. Endrew F., 2017, page 11
“The I E P must aim to enable the child to make progress. After all, the essential function of an I E P is to set out a plan for pursuing academic and functional advancement.” Endrew F., 2017, page 11

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Takeaways from Endrew F. (1 of 2)
The Supreme Court rejected the de minimis or trivial standard for determining educational benefit and replaced it with an standard which requires that I E P teams develop an I E P reasonably calculated to enable a student to make appropriate progress in light of the child’s circumstances.
The Supreme Court rejected the higher maximizing standard that Drew’s parents had sought.
The Supreme Court did not replace or overturn the Rowley decision. Instead, the Endrew decision clarified Rowley by adding their new standard to the two-part Rowley test.

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Takeaways from Endrew F. (2 of 2)
The Supreme Court settled the split among the U. S. Circuit Courts of Appeal with respect to the educational benefit question by rejecting the lower or de minimis educational benefit standard and embracing the higher educational benefit standard.
the full implications of the Endrew decision would not become clear until hearing officers and judges apply the new Rowley/Endrew two-part test to the facts presented in future F A P E litigation.

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Rowley/Endrew Test
Have school district personnel complied with the procedures of the I D E A
Was the I E P developed through the I D E A’s procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress that is appropriate in light of his or her circumstances?

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Endrew F. Decision on Remand
The judge of the U.S. District Court in Colorado reversed the decision in the Endrew F. case, holding that the Douglas County School District had failed to provide Endrew’s with a F A P E
The judge also ordered the school district to reimburse Endrew’s parents for tuition in Firefly Autism House, transportation costs, and attorneys’ fees and court costs in the amount of $1.3 million.

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Additional F A P E Issues
Methodology and F A P E
Peer-reviewed research and F A P E
Ridley School District versus M.R. and J.R (2012)
Related services and F A P E
Irving Independent School District versus Tatro (1984)
Cedar Rapids Community School District versus Garret F. (1992)
Extended school year and F A P E
Placement and F A P E
Graduation and F A P E

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

I E P Implementation and F A P E
Houston Independent School District versus Bobby R. (2000)
Van Duyn versus Baker School District (2007)
We hold that a material failure to implement an I E P violates the I D E A. A material failure occurs when there is more than a minor discrepancy between the services a school provides to a disabled child and the services required by the child’s I E P . . . We clarify that the materiality standard does not require that the child suffer demonstrable educational harm in order to prevail. Van Duyn, 2007, page 822.
Dissent

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Lessons from Litigation and Legislation
Principle 1: Involve parents as full partners in the I E P process.
Principle 2: Provide administrators, teachers, and staff training on their responsibilities under the I D E A.
Principle 3: Develop educationally meaningful and legally sound I E P.
Principle 4: Provide access to the general education curriculum.
Principle 5: Place students in the least restrictive appropriate environment.
Principle 6: Fully implement the I E P as written.

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Copyright

This work is protected by United States copyright laws and is provided solely for the use of instructors in teaching their courses and assessing student learning. Dissemination or sale of any part of this work (including on the World Wide Web) will destroy the integrity of the work and is not permitted. The work and materials from it should never be made available to students except by instructors using the accompanying text in their classes. All recipients of this work are expected to abide by these restrictions and to honor the intended pedagogical purposes and the needs of other instructors who rely on these materials.

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

19

image2

image3

image22.svg

.MsftOfcThm_Text1_Fill {
fill:#000000;
}
.MsftOfcThm_MainDark1_Stroke {
stroke:#000000;
}

image1

Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

Calculate the price of your order

You will get a personal manager and a discount.
We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
$0.00