This issue of NASET’s Classroom Management series was written by Ana Paula Fabian Freire. The ruling of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District requires progress that is greater than the de minimis precedent established in the case of Board of Education v. Rowley, where the school district had to demonstrate that the IEP provides student with disabilities reasonable educational benefit. Notably, reasonable was often based on minimal expectations often measured by effort instead of outcomes. In Endrew F., it was clarified that a school must provide and IEP that is reasonably calculated in order for a child to make progress according to the child’s own circumstances, and the child’s educational program must be appropriately ambitious and meet challenging objectives. The term “appropriate” in FAPE has had different interpretations, although it is clear that after Endrew F. the standards were raised in terms of what is considered an appropriate education for students with disabilities. All students with disabilities must have in their IEPs expectations of progress that are appropriate and instruction designed to meet their unique needs.
Abstract
The ruling of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District requires progress that is greater than the de minimis precedent established in the case of Board of Education v. Rowley, where the school district had to demonstrate that the IEP provides student with disabilities reasonable educational benefit. Notably, reasonable was often based on minimal expectations often measured by effort instead of outcomes. In Endrew F., it was clarified that a school must provide and IEP that is reasonably calculated in order for a child to make progress according to the child’s own circumstances, and the child’s educational program must be appropriately ambitious and meet challenging objectives. The term “appropriate” in FAPE has had different interpretations, although it is clear that after Endrew F. the standards were raised in terms of what is considered an appropriate education for students with disabilities. All students with disabilities must have in their IEPs expectations of progress that are appropriate and instruction designed to meet their unique needs.
Key Words: FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education), Endrew F., Rowley, appropriate, IEP.
Endrew, Rowley, and What Is an Appropriate Education
In the United States of America, every student with a disability has the right to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), guaranteed under Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which protects the rights of individuals with disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) ensures that all eligible children with disabilities are entitled to a free, appropriate public education. Despite the established assurances, throughout the years legal cases have brought forward claims of non-compliance of this law, particularly as it relates to what is appropriate.
One such case is Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017), in which Endrew’s parents rejected the IEP that was proposed by the Douglas County School District. The parents claimed that Endrew’s IEP was essentially the same as the one from the previous year, having the same basic goals and objectives, and that their child’s progress had stalled (Endrew v. Douglas County School District, 2017). Endrew’s parents placed him in a private school that specialized in education of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), specifically using the Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) methodology, and Endrew’s academics and behavior improved significantly. Endrew’s parents sought reimbursement from Douglas County School District to pay the costs of the private school, but were not successful, as during the hearing process it was concluded that the School District had provided Endrew with an IEP that would demonstrate “some measurable progress” and therefore the district had met its obligation to provide a FAPE to Endrew. Not satisfied with the decision, Endrew’s parents appealed first in the federal district court in Colorado, then to the Tenth Circuit’s, that also rejected their arguments, and eventually to the Supreme Court. The Tenth Circuit of Appeals determined that Endrew was only entitled to an educational program that was calculated to provide “merely more than de minimis” educational benefit (Endrew v. Douglas County School District, 2017).
The Supreme Court then overturned the decision of the Tenth Circuit’s determining that “to meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” (Endrew v. Douglas County School District, 2017, p. 11). Kauffman et al (2019) explain that this decision means that minor progress may no longer be a criterion that is acceptable when determining whether a child with autism or other disabilities has received FAPE. The opinion of the Court in Endrew F. also highlights that “every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives” (p. 3) and that a student that receives an educational program offering “merely more than de minimis progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.” (p. 14). It is clear that this decision confirms one of the purposes of IDEA which is to ensure that all children with disabilities have and education that meets their unique needs and prepares them for life (e.g., further education, employment, living independently), while free and appropriate.
Before Endrew: Rowley
Until Endrew F., the standard used for courts to decide on FAPE cases was based on the landmark case decision of Board of Education v. Rowley from 1982. In a Questions and Answers document released by the Department of Education on the U. S. Supreme Court Case Decision Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1,(U.S. Department of Education, 2017) clarifications were made. These included what the Court decided about the substantive standard for FAPE prior to Endrew F. It was explained that in the landmark case Board of Education of Hendrick-Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982), the Court held that a child with a disability would receive FAPE if the IEP was “reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve educational benefits” (p. 458). The child in this case was Amy Rowley, a deaf student in a public school in Hendrick-Hudson School District. Amy’s parents had requested a sign-language interpreter for her during class, however it was determined that Amy was capable to succeed in school without an interpreter, as she was able to read lips and used a hearing aid, so the request was denied. Amy’s parents subsequently sued the school for violation of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (now known as IDEA, after amended in 1990). The judge in the federal district court articulated that Amy was missing relevant information in school without an interpreter, despite the fact that she was an academically successful and bright student. The school district appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, that decided that the school district failed to provide a FAPE to Amy. After another appeal from the school district to the Supreme Court in 1982, the Court issued the ruling that has since then been used as the standard to determine whether a free and appropriate public education has been provided: Board of Education v. Rowley, which would be the first special education case to be heard by the Supreme Court (Dieterich et al., 2019; Yell & Bateman, 2020).
The Q&A document (U.S. Department of Education, 2017) also conveys that the Court in Rowley did not set an educational benefit standard and rejected the FAPE standard provided by the lower court in Amy’s case. In the decision of the lower court, the District Judge Vincent L. Broderick wrote that an appropriate education, keeping with regulations, entailed a standard that “would require that each handicapped child be given an opportunity to achieve his full potential commensurate with the opportunity provided to other children” (Rowley v. Board of Education, 1980, p. 534). Judge Vincent also considered what an “appropriate education” could mean: either adequate, in the sense that a child is provided enough to make progress from one grade to the next, or that it could also mean an education that would enable a child to “achieve his or her full potential” (p.534). Dieterich et al. (2019) points out that the judge in this case held that by providing a sign language interpreter, the school would be providing Amy with an appropriate education “beyond adequate, but not necessarily at the maximum level of education benefit possible” (p.72).
Rejecting this lower court decision, the Supreme Court ruled that is it not required for “a State to maximize the potential of each handicapped child commensurate with the opportunity provided nonhandicapped children” (Board of Education v. Rowley, 1982, p. 198), and there is no “particular substantive” level of education guaranteed once a child is receiving special education services. The Supreme Court did not determine a test of educational benefit, as they argued that schools “educate a wide spectrum”, therefore it was up to the lower courts to decide what was “merely more than de minimis” and “meaningful educational benefit” (Dieterich et al. (2019).
An Appropriate Education
The term appropriate in FAPE is critical, as most of court cases involving FAPE are about an appropriate education, and not about if it is free or public. As seen in such cases as Endrew F. and Rowley, appropriate is a term that is open to interpretation to stakeholders in the case of special education because of its vagueness and ambiguity. To some parents, an appropriate education for their child is one that will provide them with tools to succeed in school and outside, while attending to his individual educational needs, and also challenging him to reach higher goals and objectives. For another parent, it may simply be that the child learns enough to pass the school year. As every child is different the idea of what is appropriate for each child may differ. Similarly, to the school districts required to provide a FAPE to all students with disabilities, the interpretation about what is appropriate may be very distinct from that of parents as well, in which instances the cases may end up in court. However, even the courts have declined to provide a clear definition of an appropriate education, such as the ruling in Rowley by the Supreme Court. The IDEA (2004) law, while ensuring that eligible children with disabilities receive special education and related services through a free appropriate public education, also does not give a definition of appropriate.
According to the Free Appropriate Public Education for Students with Disabilities: Requirements Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) an appropriate education would include parameters such as educational services that meet the individual needs of students with disabilities, an education of students with disabilities with nondisabled students to the maximum extent appropriate, evaluations that would protect the child with disabilities against inappropriate placement or misclassification, and the establishment of due process procedures. In this narrative about what is appropriate, it is also recommended that education programs may include special education and related services to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities, as well as education programs designed to meet their unique needs to the same extent the needs of nondisabled students are met (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
Because the prospect is that an appropriate education would be offered to children with disabilities to the same extent as their nondisabled peers, it is reasonable to expect that students with disabilities should be provided with the same challenging objectives – taking into consideration their unique needs – than those of their nondisabled peers. The IEP teams must also include the parents of the child with disability in the decision-making process, as well as consider the child’s individual needs to make sure that the content of the IEP aims for the child to make progress (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Decker and Hurwitz (2017) suggested that schools should also design and implement effective behavioral plans that address the issues preventing the student to fulfil his or hers learning abilities and related goals; therefore, creating IEPs that are reasonablycalculated. Decisions about what is in the IEP should be informed by the school personnel’s expertise, the views of the child’s parents, and the child’s progress and potential for growth (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). An appropriate education, therefore, may vary depending on a child’s individual needs, as every child will require different supports throughout their school years.
Conclusion
It is essential that schools have well trained and prepared personnel to attend to the educational needs of children with disabilities. All stakeholders should have proper knowledge and information about what are the unique needs of the child with disabilities as well as how to properly serve them. It is also plausible to expect them to have knowledge of the laws related to special education and the rights and obligations of those involved as it is a case-by-case scenario analysis that will determine what is appropriate for each child. To provide an appropriate education, teachers and other school personnel need preparation, dedication, and ongoing educational opportunities to keep updated on the ever-evolving research on the needs of children with disabilities, as history tells us that they have been the most overlooked in the school system. While court rulings do not argue that schools should provide the best education possible, as the interpretation of the law does not assume that appropriate equals best possible, it is not unreasonable to assume that children should be entitled to that. As per Saleh (2019), these definitions may be counter-intuitive for parents as they might ask why an appropriate education does not seek to maximize the child’s potential. This very pertinent question might be one to lead many parents’ quests to ensure their children are receiving the education they need, and although the answer to that question might not please many parents, the Endrew F. decision is one that brought some hope for parents and families of children with disabilities. The ruling in Endrew does say that a child’s educational program must be “appropriately ambitious” and that “every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives” (Endrew v. Douglas County School District, 2017, p. 14). In this sense, even if there are still disagreements in the interpretation of the term appropriate, every child can have the opportunity to fulfil their potential.
References
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
Decker, J. R., & Hurwitz, S. (2017). Post-Endrew legal implications for students with autism. Education Law Reporter, 53(3), 7-10.
Dieterich, C. A., Kucharczyk, S., & Brady, K. P. (2019). Clarifying FAPE under the IDEA post-Endrew F.: Legal and practical guidelines for school administrative personnel. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 32(2), 72–85.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, H.R. 1350, 108th Congress (2004).
Kauffman, J. M., Wiley, A. L., Travers, J. C., Badar, J., & Anastasiou, D. (2019). Endrew and FAPE: Concepts and implications for all students with disabilities. Behavior Modification, 45(1), 177–198. doi.org/10.1177/0145445519832990
Rowley v. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, 483 F. Supp. 528 (1980) cite.case.law/f-supp/483/528/
Saleh, M. (2019, October 15). What is an “appropriate” education? Smart Kids. Retrieved July 20, 2022, from www.smartkidswithld.org/getting-help/know-your-childs-rights/childs-rights-appropriate-education-child-ld/
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2017). Questions and answers (Q&A) on U. S. Supreme Court Case Decision Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1. sites.ed.gov/idea/files/qa-endrewcase-12-07-2017.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2010) Free Appropriate Public Education for Students with Disabilities: Requirements Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Washington, D.C. www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/edlite-FAPE504.html
Yell, M. L., & Bateman, D. (2020). Defining Educational Benefit: An Update on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017). TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(5), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920914259
To Access this Article
To download a PDF file version of this issue of NASET’s Classroom Management Series: Click here
