Search

The primary message of the Supreme Court's ruling in "Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District" (hereinafter "Endrew F.," 2017) was that school districts are obligated to "offer an IEP [individualized education program] that is reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances" ("Endrew F.," 2017, p. 1001). It is through the present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP), annual goals, services, and methods to monitor student progress that special educators can ensure that their students' IEPs are designed to enable them to make academic and functional progress. The purpose of this article is to assist IEP teams to (a) connect students' areas of need as defined in the PLAAFP statements to the rest of the IEP, (b) write legally defensible IEP goals that are ambitious and meaningful, (c) develop special education and related services based on peer-reviewed research (PRR), and (d) monitor a student's progress toward their goals. Each of these components working together is essential to developing IEPs that enable a student to make progress appropriate in light of their circumstances.

The goal of this article is to assist individualized education program (IEP) team personnel to not make errors in the placement of students. To do so the authors: (1) describe what a placement decision is and who makes the decision; (2) review the placement requirements of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2006); (3) examine guidelines from the seminal cases that have addressed placement issues; (4) describe how IEP teams can avoid the most common placement errors; (5) provide a placement flowchart to help IEP teams make legally sound placement decisions; and (6) offer principles to help IEP teams make legally sound placement decisions.

This article concludes this special issue by highlighting some of the most important points from the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in "Board of Education v. Rowley" (1982) and "Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District" (2017) but also discussing another crucial point to which school district personnel must adhere to ensure that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) is provided: ensuring a student's individualized education program (IEP) is being implementing as written.

This article begins with a scenario depicting the difficulties encountered by a young student in the Douglas County School District in Castle Rock, Colorado, named Endrew (called Drew by his parents). This situation, which began at Drew's individualized education program (IEP) meeting at Summit Ridge Elementary School when he was in fourth grade, led to a due-process hearing and two federal court cases and eventually resulted in the seminal ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District" (or "Endrew F."; 2017). The ruling, which was written by chief justice John Roberts, defined the educational-benefit standard that school districts must meet in developing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities who receive special education services under the IDEA. Following the high court's ruling, the case went back through the two lower federal courts that first heard the case. A few months after the Supreme Court's ruling, the authors published an article in "TEACHING Exceptional Children" in which they reviewed the decision and provided implications for special educators for implementing programs that meet the FAPE standard of the the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2006) (see EJ1160170). The purpose of this article is to provide an update of that article and to examine the effects of the "Endrew F." ruling 3 years after it was announced. To accomplish this, the authors (1) review the definition of FAPE in the IDEA; (2) reexamine and update the Supreme Court's decision in "Endrew F."; and (3) extrapolate principles for educators from "Endrew F." with respect to development of students' IEPs.

This article begins by describing a scenario in which a fourth-grade learning disabled student's individualized education program (IEP) team came together to develop his IEP and in so doing made a number of procedural and substantive errors. The purpose of this article is to examine the procedural and substantive requirements of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2006) with the goal of helping school personnel avoid making procedural and substantive errors when developing students' IEPs.

The Supreme Court decision in "Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District" (2017) established a higher standard of what constitutes an appropriate education for students receiving special education. In contrast to the previous standard provided in the "Board of Education v. Rowley" (1982) decision, which established that "some benefit" (even minimal or trivial benefit) was acceptable, the "Endrew F." decision reflected a higher standard for the delivery of special education. Specifically, special education should result in measurable progress toward individualized education program goals. This article explores what it means for special education teacher educators to prepare teacher candidates to meet this higher standard. In particular, how a focus on instruction (i.e., the delivery of specially designed instruction) rather than a focus on access to the general curriculum is necessary in order for meaningful, measurable change to occur in the outcomes of students with high-incidence disabilities will be explored.

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.

Thirty-five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in "Rowley" (1982). The case, which was the first special education case to be heard by the Court, ruled on the question of what constituted Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for students with disabilities under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EAHCA), which was retitled as IDEA in 1990. On March 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in "Endrew F.," which also addressed FAPE. These two cases should be read in tandem, as they are extremely important in providing special educators with guidance regarding what is an appropriate education for students with disabilities. This article defines IDEA's FAPE Requirement. It reviews the Supreme Court's first FAPE ruling in "Rowley." It then describes FAPE rulings by the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals and how the circuit courts differed in their interpretations of the "Rowley" decision. The authors then present the history of the "Endrew F." case, the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, and the Court's unanimous ruling in this case. A discussion of implications of the decision for special education follows. A list of the top 10 implications from "Endrew F." is provided.

William is 9 years of age, residing with his parent within the boundaries of an unnamed district ("the District"). As a student with autism he is eligible for special education programming and services. There was one issue presented for this due process hearing: What was the appropriate program and placement for him for the 2008-2009 school year? Specifically, should he be placed in general education at his neighborhood school or in a local private school whose mission is providing services for students with autism? This article discusses the history of William's case, its hearing, and the decision made by the court on his case.

Greg is 13 years old, and currently in seventh grade; he entered an unnamed District ("the District") school in fourth grade as a student with a specific learning disability; he had been identified as eligible for special education programming and services during second grade. During fifth and sixth grade Greg was provided services through a resource teacher for his learning disabilities, most notably for his problems with language arts and math. During sixth grade his behavioral difficulties resulted in him spending the last 6 weeks of the school year in an alternative education placement. Because of his behavior difficulties, the District sought to classify Greg as emotionally disturbed and sought a placement other than the resource room for students with learning disabilities. The issue presented at the due process hearing was the appropriateness of the District's proposed placement in a full-time classroom for students with emotional disturbance. Greg's parents opposed the proposed placement, wanting him retained in his neighborhood school with additional support. This article discusses the history of Greg's case and the decision made by the court.

Ben is a 16-year-old student who resides with his family in an unnamed School District. He is eligible for special education by reason of specific learning disability and ADHD. His parents requested a due process hearing, alleging that the District failed to provide him with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and requesting reimbursement for private school tuition. This article discusses the history of Ben's case, its hearing, and the decision made by the court on his case.