Free Appropriate Public Education, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Developing and Implementing Individualized Education Programs
In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990) established the essential obligation of special education law, which is to develop a student’s individualized special education program that enables them to receive a free approp...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-05-01
|
| Series: | Laws |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/10/2/38 |
| _version_ | 1797533796063510528 |
|---|---|
| author | Michael Rozalski Mitchell L. Yell Jacob Warner |
| author_facet | Michael Rozalski Mitchell L. Yell Jacob Warner |
| author_sort | Michael Rozalski |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990) established the essential obligation of special education law, which is to develop a student’s individualized special education program that enables them to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE was defined in the federal law as special education and related services that: (a) are provided at public expense, (b) meet the standards of the state education agency, (c) include preschool, elementary, or secondary education, and (d) are provided in conformity with a student’s individualized education program (IEP). Thus, the IEP is the blueprint of an individual student’s FAPE. The importance of FAPE has been shown in the number of disputes that have arisen over the issue. In fact 85% to 90% of all special education litigation involves disagreements over the FAPE that students receive. FAPE issues boil down to the process and content of a student’s IEP. In this article, we differentiate procedural (process) and substantive (content) violations and provide specific guidance on how to avoid both process and content errors when drafting and implementing students’ IEPs. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T11:20:43Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1d40f0fc04ae49e7861c966cad3ec099 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2075-471X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T11:20:43Z |
| publishDate | 2021-05-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Laws |
| spelling | doaj.art-1d40f0fc04ae49e7861c966cad3ec0992023-11-21T20:04:22ZengMDPI AGLaws2075-471X2021-05-011023810.3390/laws10020038Free Appropriate Public Education, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Developing and Implementing Individualized Education ProgramsMichael Rozalski0Mitchell L. Yell1Jacob Warner2Ella Cline Shear School of Education, State University of New York at Geneseo, South Hall 219C, Geneseo, NY 14454, USAWardlaw College of Education, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USABroome-Tioga Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Binghamton, NY 13905, USAIn 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990) established the essential obligation of special education law, which is to develop a student’s individualized special education program that enables them to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE was defined in the federal law as special education and related services that: (a) are provided at public expense, (b) meet the standards of the state education agency, (c) include preschool, elementary, or secondary education, and (d) are provided in conformity with a student’s individualized education program (IEP). Thus, the IEP is the blueprint of an individual student’s FAPE. The importance of FAPE has been shown in the number of disputes that have arisen over the issue. In fact 85% to 90% of all special education litigation involves disagreements over the FAPE that students receive. FAPE issues boil down to the process and content of a student’s IEP. In this article, we differentiate procedural (process) and substantive (content) violations and provide specific guidance on how to avoid both process and content errors when drafting and implementing students’ IEPs.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/10/2/38individualized educational programlaw/legal issuespolicyproceduralsubstantive |
| spellingShingle | Michael Rozalski Mitchell L. Yell Jacob Warner Free Appropriate Public Education, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Developing and Implementing Individualized Education Programs Laws individualized educational program law/legal issues policy procedural substantive |
| title | Free Appropriate Public Education, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Developing and Implementing Individualized Education Programs |
| title_full | Free Appropriate Public Education, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Developing and Implementing Individualized Education Programs |
| title_fullStr | Free Appropriate Public Education, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Developing and Implementing Individualized Education Programs |
| title_full_unstemmed | Free Appropriate Public Education, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Developing and Implementing Individualized Education Programs |
| title_short | Free Appropriate Public Education, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Developing and Implementing Individualized Education Programs |
| title_sort | free appropriate public education the u s supreme court and developing and implementing individualized education programs |
| topic | individualized educational program law/legal issues policy procedural substantive |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/10/2/38 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT michaelrozalski freeappropriatepubliceducationtheussupremecourtanddevelopingandimplementingindividualizededucationprograms AT mitchelllyell freeappropriatepubliceducationtheussupremecourtanddevelopingandimplementingindividualizededucationprograms AT jacobwarner freeappropriatepubliceducationtheussupremecourtanddevelopingandimplementingindividualizededucationprograms |