Free and Appropriate Education
Running head: HISTORY OF FREE AND APPROPRIATE EDUCATION
History and Relevance of Free and Appropriate Education
Maureen Leyden
Ball State University
1
Free and Appropriate Education
Abstract
Free and Appropriate Education is directly related the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act and is important in the formation of a student’s Individualized Education Program. Many
students with disabilities require FAPE in order to afford an appropriate education, but an
appropriate education also involves services outside of school such as speech or occupational
therapy. The history of FAPE is rich in important court cases that have helped shape laws that
enable students to receive the best education possible. Overall, FAPE is a major component of
IDEA and should continue to help raise awareness of student’s with disabilities and their
education.
2
Free and Appropriate Education
3
History and Relevance of Free and Appropriate Education
Special education is always changing and evolving but Free and Appropriate Public
Education, also known as FAPE, has always been part of the foundation of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (Department of Education, 2002). FAPE is a crucial element of IDEA
because it gives disabled students the right to an education and related services at no cost. The
history of FAPE is vast but there are some major specific milestones that have made FAPE what
it is today and along with new laws, important court cases have given disabled students more
resources.
Tom Smith (2001) discusses how Section 504 and FAPE are related and what he believes
educators need to know, he also provides the definition of FAPE according to Section 504:
Section 504 defines FAPE as the provision of general or special education and
related aids and services that are designed to meet the individual educational
needs of persons with disabilities as well as the needs of a non handicapped
person are met and based on adherence to procedural safeguards outlined in the
law. (p. 339)
The definition according to Section 504 is very broad and includes students with and without
disabilities as well as the variety of service available to a student. But it does emphasize that for
any educational program to be considered appropriate; the specific needs of the student should be
met (Smith 2001). There are many components that justify an appropriate education and include,
"using nondiscriminatory evaluations and placement procedures, meeting the need of students
with disabilities as well as the needs of non-disabled students, serving student with disabilities
alongside non-disabled students, and providing due process provisions (Smith, 2001, p. 339)”
Free and Appropriate Education
4
It is required by IDEA and Section 504 that a student with a disability be included in a
general education classroom to the provision that it remains appropriate and maximizes learning.
If the school can display that a student’s education cannot be obtained in an inclusive setting, the
school is able to educate disabled students separately (Smith 2001).
About twenty-five years ago, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act, also known as, Public Law 94-142. The law was supposed to help states and local
agencies protect and meet the individual needs of children who had disabilities. In 1997, the law
was amended and is now referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, also
known as IDEA. But before 1975, most children who had disabilities were denied access to an
education and most schools only educated one in five children who were disabled (Archived: A
25 Year History of the IDEA, 2000). But, when Public Law 94-142 was enacted, it gave students
with disabilities the right to a free and appropriate education and had four major purposes that
ensured each child had available to them free and appropriate education, the rights of the
children and families were protected, that state and local agencies were assisted, and to assess the
efforts and make sure the programs were effective (Department of Education, 2000). There have
been many changes over the years since the implementation of the act in 1975 and the
amendment in 1997. But one of the most aggressive changes came in 2004.
In 2004, IDEA underwent substantial changes that had a large impact on students with
disabilities and their families. Most of the changes dealt with the Individual Education Plan or
IEP. “The Individual Education Program (IEP) is an essential component in providing a free,
appropriate public education (FAPE) to individuals with disabilities,” according to Gartin and
Murdick, 2005. The IEP is a written statement for each disabled student and must be reviewed
and revised on a regular basis and should include specific elements in order to be deemed
Free and Appropriate Education
5
appropriate. The elements that must be present in each students IEP are present level of
performance, goals and benchmarks, child progress and reports of requirements, services that are
offered, general education involvement, accommodations on state and district wide assessments,
dates and times of services, transitions, age of majority, the IEP team and attendance. Elements
of IEP development include general considerations, special factors, general educations teacher
requirement, editing changes to the IEP, review and revision of the IEP, and. multiyear IEP
demonstration projects There were many significant changes to IDEA in 2004, many regarding
the IEP, which is a major factor of FAPE (Gartin et al, 2005).
The IEP is only one of several topics that revolve around FAPE and in general, FAPE
plays a very important role in IDEA. IDEA includes key principles to guide families and
professionals to work together to enhance the educational opportunities for their children (A 25
Year History, 2007, p. 28)” Providing students with disabilities a free and appropriate public
education is a crucial step in the IDEA latter because without it, many students could not afford
many of the services they require when receiving an education. Not only does FAPE emphasize a
free public education, it is also requires that related services be provided when deemed suitable.
But not only does FAPE mandate a free education, it mandates that the education be
appropriate and individual to each student. Since Congress passed the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act in 1975, there have been substantial court cases that have impacted
laws and the daily lives of students with disabilities. Three very important cases include the
Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson School District, (1982), Walczak v. Florida Union Free School
District and Maureen Flaherty,(1997,1998), and finally, Catherine Evans v. Board of Education
of the Rhinebeck Central School District, (1996).
Free and Appropriate Education
6
First, Amy Rowley was a child born with a hearing impairment that resulted in minimal
residual hearing. But she was able to read lips and was learning to communicate through sign
language. When her parents enrolled her in kindergarten at Furnace Woods School in Peekskill,
New York, they met with administrators at the school, which resulted in providing services to
Amy, and she would go through a trial period in the classroom to see if it was an appropriate
setting for Amy. During the trial period, an interpreter was used for a two-week trial period, but
it was reported that Amy did not need the services provided by the interpreter. Some of the other
services included installing a Teletype machine so that the school could communicate with
Amy’s parents who were also deaf. Amy received an hour of special tutoring everyday along
with 3 hours of speech therapy a week. After the trial period in the general education
kindergarten room, it was determined that Amy should use the assistance of an FM hearing aid
that amplified the words of her teacher who wore a wireless microphone. Amy successfully
completed her kindergarten year and before the fall of her first grade year, an IEP was arranged
that included the use of the hearing aid and the use of the tutor and speech therapist. But Amy’
parents believed it was necessary for Amy to use the services of an interpreter, but their request
was denied because Amy was doing very well in her class and it did not seem necessary. Amy’s
parents eventually sought action in the United State District Court for the Southern District of
New York with the statement that the denial of the interpreter constituted as denial of a “free and
appropriate public education”. Two important questions arose during the case and asked,
according to Whitted, “Has the State complied with the procedures set forth in the Act and
second, is the individualized education program developed through the Act's procedures
reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits?” The questions are two
Free and Appropriate Education
7
important questions still asked in education today and can be used as instructional tools twenty
years after the case (Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson School District, 1982).
The next influential case, Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District,(1997,1998),
discusses why an accurate IEP is important for FAPE. The main objectives were to see if B.W.
could receive an appropriate education in the year round daily program versus the residential
one. In New York, each student’s IEP identifies a specific class placement and states how a child
should be placed in a classroom. Student’s can only be placed in a special education if they have
the same disabilities or have similar individual needs for the purpose of providing a special
education program (Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District and Maureen
Flaherty,1997,1998)). They children must also be at similar academic levels and have similar
learning characteristics. Thus each child will have the equal opportunity to achieve their annual
goals set by their IEP (Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District and Maureen
Flaherty,1997,1998).
After being placed in her kindergarten class, evidence of learning and developmental
disabilities were apparent. She has a low-to-normal IQ of 81, limited vocabulary, a short
attention span, and could not follow simple directions. B.W. was labeled as a learning disabled
student and her 1995-96 school year IEP required that she be placed in a year round school,
Board of Co operative Education Services, also known as BOCES. The program was only for
children that had developmental disabilities. There were twelve children in her classroom and
one teacher and one aid taught B.W. Her IEP also required that she receive thirty minutes of
speech therapy four times a week, three of those times were to be with a group. She also received
thirty minutes of group counseling one day a week. Her parents disagreed with the IEP and
believed her daughter’s needs would be met better if she were placed in a residential program.
Free and Appropriate Education
8
Her parents also disapproved of the BOCES class size and composition. State and Federal
officials believed the BOCES program was sufficient mainly because evidence of her classroom
performance was ample. Her classroom also permitted to make educational and social progress.
Her parents decided to enroll B.W. in the residential classroom which provided a self contained
classroom and some mainstream classes. She was tested after her enrollment and her IQ had
dropped and she showed little signs of improvement. The next school year, she re-enrolled at
BOCES, but was withdrawn from the class to attend a special camp where her parents believe
she learned numerous social skills. In the end, the challenged IEP was deemed adequate and
provided B.W. with an appropriate education from the district recommended BOCES program.
The district courts originally favored the Walczak’s but reversed their decision and were in favor
of the school districts placement of B.W. (Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District and
Maureen Flaherty,1997,1998).
Finally, the last case involves Catherine Evans v. Board of Education of the Rhinebeck
Central School District, (1996). Frank was an above average student with a high intelligence
level but suffered from dyslexia. He had very poor language skills and very low self-esteem. He
was given many tests that confirmed the label. In the beginning, the district did not see it fit to
place Frank in a special education setting and denied him an appropriate education. Frank failed
the seventh grade, but was still promoted to the eighth grade. His IEP for the 1994-95 school
year required that he be placed in a special education setting and be taught by the special
education teacher. For the school year, Frank saw a tutor regularly but did not show much
improvement and during the summer was assigned a male tutor in which Frank made more
progress. Franks mother decided to enroll him at a private school for children specifically with
dyslexia, the Kildonan School. It was deemed by the courts that the specialized school was an
Free and Appropriate Education
9
appropriate education for Franks and the courts concluded that the public schooling was not
suitable for Frank (Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District,1997,1998).
All of the court cases previously mentioned are very important to FAPE and how it has
transformed over time. The case, Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson School District, (1982), showed
how important an accurate IEP is and that is appropriate for each students. The second court case
mentioned, Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District,(1997, 1998), took place after 1990 in
which IDEA had more provisions, but there were still major conflicts between parents of
students with disabilities and the public school system. The court decision favored on the side of
the school district and proved that school systems often know how to make education services
appropriate for the student. Lastly, the case involving Catherine Evans v. Board of Education of
the Rhinebeck Central School District, (1996), was able to make many people aware of why
FAPE is so important especially for children at risk of dropping out of school because of a
disability (Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, 1997,1998).
Free and Appropriate Education
10
References
Catherine Evans v. Board of Education of the Rhinebeck Central School District, No. 95 CV
10102 (1996).
Gartin, B. C., & Murdick, L. N. (2005). IDEA 2004: The IEP. Remedial and special education,
26(6), 327-331
Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson School District, 632 F. 2d 945 (1982).
Smith, T. E .C. (2001). Section 504, the ADA, and public schools. Remedial And Special
Education, 22(6), 335-343.
U.S. Department of Education (2007). History twenty- five years of progress in educating
children with disabilities through IDEA. Retrieved September 15, 2007 from , U.S.
Department of Education Web site:
http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/history.html
U.S. Department of Education (n.d.). Query: FAPE. Retrieved September 15, 2007 from, U.S.
Department of Education Web site: http://idea.ed.gov/explore/search
Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District and Maureen Flaherty, No. 97-7155
(1997, 1998)
Whitted, B. R. Whitted, Clearly & Takiff, Special Education Law. Retrieved September 20,
2007, from http://www.whittedclearylaw.com/CM/Publications/publications45.asp