Six Major Principles of IDEA: 1. Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
FAPE
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) is an educational right of children with disabilities in the United States that is guaranteed by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Purpose of FAPE
An appropriate education may comprise education in regular classes, education in regular classes with the use of related aids and services, or special education and related services in separate classrooms for all or portions of the school day. Special education may include specially designed instruction in classrooms, at home, or in private or public institutions, and may be accompanied by related services such as speech therapy, occupational and physical therapy, psychological counseling, and medical diagnostic services necessary to the child’s education.
An appropriate education will include:
-
education services designed to meet the individual education needs of students with disabilities as adequately as the needs of nondisabled students are met;
-
the education of each student with a disability with nondisabled students, to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the student with a disability;
-
evaluation and placement procedures established to guard against misclassification or inappropriate placement of students, and a periodic reevaluation of students who have been provided special education or related services; and
-
establishment of due process procedures that enable parents and guardians to:
-
receive required notices;
-
review their child’s records; and
-
challenge identification, evaluation and placement decisions.
-
Due process procedures must also provide for an impartial hearing with the opportunity for participation by parents and representation by counsel, and a review procedure.
"Equal Protection Doctrine"
-
In the 14th ammendment it states that no state can deny a person protection of the laws.
-
This supports FAPE and offers more protection for those with disabilities.
-
States must treat everyone the same, despite their ability.
Equal Protetion in my Classroom
Equal protection in my classroom is treating my students fairly and equally. I provide equal chances and opportunities for all of my students no matter their disability.
Court Cases Pertaining to FAPE
Gross vs. Lopez
Background: 9 students, including Dwight Lopez, were suspended from Central High School (Columbus, Ohio) for 10 days for destroying school property and distrubing the learning environment.
Ohio Law 3313.16 empowered the school principal to suspend a student for a period of 10 days or expel them. The law required that the students' parents be notified of the action within 24 hours and be given the reason. If the student were expelled, the student could appeal to the Board of Education. However, 3313.16 gave no such allowances if the students were suspended. A three-judge District Court struck down the law, saying that it violated the students' right to due process of law.
The district court reprimanded the school for its violation of the 14th ammendement, state that there were "minimum requirements of notice and a hearing prior to suspension, except in emergency situations." The case was appealed by the school to the Supreme Court.
Hudson vs. Rowley
Background: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Act), 20 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., provides federal money to assist state and local agencies in educating handicapped children, and conditions such funding upon a States compliance with extensive goals and procedures. The Act represents an ambitious federal effort to promote the education of handicapped children, and was passed in response to Congress' perception that a majority of handicapped in the United States "were either totally excluded from schools or [were] sitting idly in regular classrooms awaiting the time when they were old enough to 'drop out.'" H.R. Rep. No. 94-332. P.2 (1975). The Acts evolution and major provisions shed light on the question of statutory interpretation which is at he heart of this case.
Congress first addressed the problem of education the handicapped in 1966 when it amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish a grant program "for the purpose of assisting the States in the initiation, expansion, and improvement of programs and projects . . . for the education of handicapped children." Pub. L. No. 89-750, 161, 80 Stat. 1204 (1966). That program was repealed in 1970 by the Education for the Handicapped Act, Pub. L. No. 91-230, 84 Star, 175, Part B of which established a grant program similar in purpose to the repealed legislation. Neither the 1966 nor 1970 legislation contained specific guidelines for state use of the grant money; both were aimed primarily at stimulating the States to develop educational resources.
The "free appropriate public education" required by the Act is tailored to the unique needs of the handicapped child by means of an 'individualized educational program" (IEP). 1401(18). The IEP, which is prepared at a meeting between a qualified representative of the local educational agency, the child's teacher, the child parents or guardian, and, where appropriate, the child, consists of a written document containing
(A) a student of the present levels of educational performance of the child,
(B) a statement of annual goals, including short-term instructional objectives,
(C) a statement of the specific educational services to be provided to such child, and the extent to which such child will be able to participate in regular educational programs,
(D) the projected date for initiation and anticipated duration of such service, and
(E) appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, on at least an annual basis, whether instructional objectives are being achieved." 1401(19).
T.R.; E.M.R., v. Kingwood Township Board of Education
Background: N.R. was born on September 7, 1991, and was classified as preschool handicapped in 1994. During the summer of 1996, N.R.’s parents met with Board officials to discuss an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") for N.R. for the 1996-97 school year. The Board’s child study team determined that N.R. had the skills to begin kindergarten in the fall of 1996 and recommended his placement in the Kingwood School’s regular kindergarten program. On August 2, 1996, however, T.R. and E.M.R. rejected this proposed placement, stating that they planned to send N.R. to preschool for another year.
At that time, Kingwood Township did not offer a regular preschool program for non-disabled children. Rather, the Township offered a single, half-day preschool class composed of half disabled children and half non-disabled children. The Board drafted a new IEP which provided for N.R.’s placement in this class, with afternoon placement in the school’s resource room. N.R.’s parents rejected this proposal and informed the Board that they planned to have N.R. spend the next year at the Rainbow Rascals Learning Center ("Rainbow Rascals"), a private daycare center that N.R. had attended the previous year. At the time, Rainbow Rascals was not accredited as a preschool by the State of New Jersey or by any independent educational accreditation agency. Nevertheless, T.R. and E.M.R. requested that the Board pay for N.R.’s tuition at Rainbow Rascals and provide supplemental special education services there.
The Board filed for due process, seeking a determination that its 1996-97 IEP provided N.R. with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment as required by the IDEA. The Administrative Law Judge found that Kingwood Township’s kindergarten program satisfied the IDEA’s requirements and that the Board should not be liable for the parents’ decision to keep N.R. at Rainbow Rascals.
In April 1997, N.R.’s parents filed suit on his behalf in District Court. They alleged, inter alia, that the ALJ had erred in finding that the Board’s proposed IEPs had offered N.R. a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board. The District Court found that the 1996-97 IEP (consisting of placement in Kingwood’s half-day preschool class and resource room) provided N.R. with a free, appropriate public education by offering more than a trivial education benefit. See T.R. v. Kingwood Township Bd. of Educ., 32 F. Supp. 2d 720, 728-29 (D.N.J. 1998). The court pointed to testimony by the Board’s expert witnesses, Dr. Frances Hobbie and Dr. Leslie Callanan, who stated that the Kingwood program would meet N.R.’s educational needs. The court also referenced the testimony of Darlene Johnson, the teacher of the Kingwood preschool class, who stated that she was familiar with N.R.’s IEP and would work to implement it on a daily basis.
In addition, the District Court found that the Kingwood class constituted the least restrictive environment for N.R. under the IDEA. See id. at 730. Finally, the court held that Rainbow Rascals could not be considered as a possible placement for N.R. because it was not accredited by the state. See id. at 730-31.
N.R. and his parents appeal, seeking reimbursement for N.R.’s tuition at Rainbow Rascals and for his therapy costs for the 1996-97 school year.
The Extended School Year
In the United States, Extended School Year (ESY) services are designed to support a student with a disability as documented under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to maintain the academic, social/behavioral, communication, or other skills that they have learned as part of their Individualized Education Program (IEP) or Section 504 accommodation plan. In order for a student to receive ESY services, the student must have evidenced substantial regression and recoupment issues during the previous IEP year and/or there is evidence of emerging skills which are often referred to as "breakthrough" skills. The focus of the services provided to the student as part of an ESY program are generally not upon learning new skills or "catching up" to grade level, but rather to provide practice to maintain previously acquired or learned skills. In some cases ESY is focused on continuing education for students whose rate of progress is insufficient to enable effective progress during the regular school year. If a student has received ESY services in previous years the student may not be eligible in future years as determinations for eligibility of ESY services are made annually by the IEP or 504 plan (which includes the parent and student of age 16 or older. NOTE: The mandatory age at which a student must be included varies by State but the Federal law states no later than age 16.)
(a) General.
-
Under the re-authorization of IDEA, effective July 1, 2005, each public agency must ensure that extended school year services are available as necessary to provide Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), consistent with paragraph (a)(2).
-
Extended school year services must be provided only if a child's IEP Team determines, on an individual basis, in accordance with Sec. Sec. 300.320 through 300.324, that the services are necessary for the provision of FAPE to the child.
-
In implementing the requirements of this section, a public agency may not--
Limit extended school year services to particular categories of disability; or
Unilaterally limit the type, amount, or duration of those services.
Pitfalls to Avoid
In order to avoid pitfalls with FAPE parents must first understand fully what FAPe means. Then students are parents must understand that the education can and will be taken away if it is abused or not taken seriously.
It is also important that parents address any concerns they have with the education and procedures taken places with their child. Being kind and understanding is crucial and being polite when there is a complaint is important to help the situation proceed smoothly.
Writing letters and tape recording meetings are important if there is a concern about a child. Documentation is key when addressing concerns or requests about a child and their IEP from a parent standpoint. It is important that communication remains open and that everyone in the meetings and conversations are there for the best interest of the child involved.
