5 IDEA Principle – Free Appropriate Public Education

Three existing federal statutes address the rights of individuals with disabilities to receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE):

• Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act:
  • FAPE is defined as “the provision of regular or special education and related aids and services that are designed to meet individual needs of individuals with disabilities as well as the needs of non-disabled individuals are met and based on adherence to procedural safeguards outlined in the law.”
• the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA):
  • FAPE is defined as an educational program that is individualized to a specific individual, designed to meet that individual’s unique needs, provides access to the general curriculum, meets the grade-level standards established by the state, and from which the individual receives educational benefit.
• the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
  • FAPE is not defined in this law but the law does prohibit discrimination based on disability.

FEDERAL LAW

IDEA Regulations §300.17

§300.17 Free appropriate public education or FAPE means special education and related services that–

(a) are provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge;

(b) meet the standards of the SEA, including the requirements of this part;

(c) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and

(d) are provided in conformity with an IEP that meets the requirements of §§ 300.320 through 300.324.

LITIGATION

• Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (2nd Circuit Court 1982)
  The Supreme Court found that individualized decisions based on the unique needs of each individual were essential under federal law. Schools who let one criterion, such as a specific disability, automatically determine the placement are likely to be held in violation of federal law.

• Springdale v. Grace (1982) – A summary document of a due process case in Arkansas to determine the least restrictive environment (LRE) for a student who is profoundly deaf.

• Steinberg v. Weast (2001) – This case addressed the issues of LRE and FAPE. The parents of a child with a disability agreed with their daughter’s IEP goals, but they did not agree with the recommended placement for their child. They rejected the proposed placement at a public non-residential school and enrolled their daughter in a private residential school. The court determined that the parents were not eligible for tuition reimbursement.
• Endrew v. Douglas (2017) – This case invited the court to determine the level of educational benefit schools must provide students with disabilities under IDEA. The court reviewed FAPE requirements under IDEA and unanimously decided to overturn a previous courts determination that minimal progress was sufficient. This court decided that IEPs should be developed that allow a student to make reasonable progress based on their unique circumstances.

• Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools (2023) US Supreme Court – Typically, parents with a claim of denial of FAPE have had to exhaust the immediate dispute resolution methods offered by their child’s school division, including a due process hearing (and, in eight states, a decision by a review officer) in order to move their claim to a court of law, citing IDEA or any other applicable law.  Since 2017, two cases have addressed the limited exceptions to this rule, Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools (2017) and Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools (2023). The US Supreme Court heard Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools (2023), in which a deaf student was denied appropriate interpreter services. His parent did not learn of this omission until he was scheduled to graduate from high school without a diploma.  Perez sought compensatory damages for emotional distress and lost income under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The US Supreme Court gave the unanimous decision that “IDEA’s exhaustion provision does not apply “where a plaintiff brings a suit under another federal law for compensatory damages—a form of relief everyone agrees IDEA does not provide.”” (Zirkel, 2023).
• Virginia Due Process Hearing Case 20-030 – A summary document of a due process case in Virginia to determine  whether a student was denied FAPE under IDEA by the local educational agency (LEA) because (1) the student was not provided services in the LRE; (2) the LEA failed to identify and address the student’s dyslexia; (3) the LEA denied parents meaningful participation in the IEP process; (4) the LEA engaged in intimidation and racially-based discrimination; (5) the LEA failed to secure comprehensive information prior to making eligibility decisions; (6) the LEA failed to report possible disability indicators to deny services; (7) the LEA denied extended school year services by proposing such services late in the school year; and, (8) the LEA failed to develop a proper IEP for the student.
• Virginia Due Process Hearing Case 19-046 – A summary document of a due process case in Virginia to determine whether the LEA denied a student FAPE by developing an inappropriate IEP in August 2018, with a deficient number of minutes per week of specialized instruction in both the general education and special education settings.

resources

• What is Free Appropriate Public Education? [PDF] This brief article from Understood.org summarizes the principles of FAPE.
• Learn More about FAPE and IDEA – This link provides legal foundations for FAPE within IDEA. There are several sections: Legal Foundations, Questions & Answers; Articles & Resources; Legal Definitions; and Court Cases.
• Use these FAPE PowerPoint slides as a resource to share information.
• Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) – This is the United States Department of Education website. The website describes FAPE and provides policy guidance, resolutions, and court cases.
• This resource, Your Rights Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, is a two page fact sheet.
• This publication provided by the U.S. Department of Education, FAPE for Students with Disabilities: Requirements Under Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, explains who is entitled to FAPE, defines “appropriate education,” and explains other requirements.

Discussion Questions:

• Discuss the similarities and differences between IDEA, ADA, and Section 504 in regards to FAPE.
• How does the Rowley case impact how LEAs might provide FAPE for individuals with disabilities?
• Do you think the definition of ‘appropriate’ differs based on district? Explain your thinking