ERIC Number: EJ1160170
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2017
"Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District" (2017): FAPE and the U.S. Supreme Court
Yell, Mitchell L.; Bateman, David F.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, v50 n1 p7-15 Sep-Oct 2017
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.
Descriptors: Disabilities, Public Education, Court Litigation, Educational Legislation, Federal Legislation, Equal Education, Individualized Education Programs, Parent Participation, Special Education, Standards
SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: email@example.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; Board of Education v Rowley
Grant or Contract Numbers: N/A