Special Education Case Summary

According to Suzie Dalien “ Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) was designed without borders.” The Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982) and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) focus on what determines FAPE. Amy Rowley and Endrew F. were both categorized as students needing special education services and therefore required Individualized Educational plans (IEPs.) In each case the parents disagreed with the proposed IEPs by the school district and both cases advanced to the supreme court. The facts behind each case are different both parents disagreed with the school IEP, the cases were presented to the Supreme Court, they established new standards for lower courts, and , the

He was diagnosed with autism at age two years and had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD.) He attended Douglas County School District and received special education services from preschool through fourth grade. He struggled with communicating his needs and wants, interacting socially with peers and teachers, and had disruptive behaviors. Endrews behavioral issues were progressively escalating with each school year and as the behaviors became more severe his time in general education was limited and he was spending increasing time in special education

The Rowley and Endrew cases both indicate procedures must be followed. However, Rowley specifies the student must receive educational benefit from the IEP and Endrew suggests the IEP needs to be individual and appropriate goals that are challenging to that student. Endrew implies collaboration is essential as a team, and requires parents and their input. The IEP team is obligated to determine present level of academic and functional skills; determine student needs; and how, when, and where progress will be monitored. It is essential that successive IEPs guide growth by advancing the students goals and not just stall the targets from year to year. The legal language and guarantees of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) seemed to be unclear to the courts after the Rowley decision. Hence, lower courts deciding disputes based on Rowley when the case was dissimilar to Rowley’s. Although the legal writings of the Individuals with Disability Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) post Endrew decision are more specific there remains some ambiguity for the lower courts and their future