Special educators are responsible for developing and delivering individualized education programs to students with disabilities that meet procedural and substantive requirements of the individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA). Although the six major provisions of IDEA are often taught in isolation, this article reimagines free appropriate public education (FAPE), nondiscriminatory evaluations, individualized education programs (IEPs), the least restrictive environment (LRE), family participation, and procedural safeguards as interconnected gears. Each gear collectively contributes to the definition of FAPE for individual students in special education. A framework for holistically approaching special education law is discussed and a checklist for evaluating the meaningfulness and legal defensibility of IEPs is presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AvendanoS. M.ChoE. (2020). Building collaborative relationships with parents: A checklist for promoting success. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(4), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059919892616
2.
BatemanB. D. (2017). Individual education programs for children with disabilities. In KauffmanJ. M.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 91–106). Routledge.
3.
BillingsleyB. S. (1993). Teacher retention and attrition in special and general education: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 137–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699302700202
4.
BillingsleyB. S. (2004). Promoting teacher quality and retention in special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(5), 370–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370050101
5.
BillingsleyB.BettiniE. (2019). Special education teacher attrition and retention: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 697–744. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319862495
6.
BlaskoA.MorinK.LindströmE. R.MurphyG.SquitieriM. D. (2024). Special educators’ training and preparedness to write individualized education programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 47(2), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064241234616
7.
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 485 U.S. 176 (1982).
8.
BrunstingN. C.SreckovicM. A.LaneK. L. (2014). Special education teacher burnout: A synthesis of research from 1979 to 2013. Education and Treatment of Children, 37(4), 681–712. http://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2014.0032
9.
CasaleE. G.GreenA. F.GoldmanS. E.BurkeM. M.HodappR. M. (2024). Preparing special educators and school principals in special education law: An undervalued area of professional training?Teacher Education and Special Education, 47(3), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064241234635
10.
DeweyJ.SindelarP. T.BettiniE.BoeE. E.RosenbergM. S.LekoC. (2017). Explaining the decline in special education teacher employment from 2005 to 2012. Exceptional Children, 83(3), 315–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916684620
11.
Doug C. v. Hawaii Department of Education, 720 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir.) (2013).
12.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).
13.
HagamanJ. L.CaseyK. J. (2018). Teacher attrition in special education: Perspectives from the field. Teacher Education and Special Education, 41(4), 277–291.
14.
HarmonS.StreetM.BatemanD.YellM. L. (2020). Developing present levels of academic achievement and functional performance statements for IEPs. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(5), 320–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920914260
HogueL. B.TaylorS. S. (2020). A review of special education caseload policies state by state: What impact do they have?Journal of Special Education Leadership, 33(1), 25–35.
17.
Honig v. Doe, 479 U.S. 1084 (1988).
18.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (2004).
19.
KatsiyannisA.YellM. L.BradleyR. (2001). Reflections on the 25th anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Remedial and Special Education, 22(6), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200602
MarkelzA. M.NagroS. A.SzocikKMonninK.GerryM.MacedoniaA.MasonA. (2021). The nature and extent of special education law in teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 45(3), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064211046248
24.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Students with disabilities. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg
25.
TurnbullA. P.TurnbullM.WehmeyerM. L. (2020). Exceptional lives: Practice progress and dignity in today’s schools (9th ed.). Pearson.
26.
YellM. L.BatemanD. F. (2017). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): FAPE and the U.S. supreme court. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 50(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917721116
27.
YellM. L.BatemanD. (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
28.
YellM. L.ChristleC. A. (2017). The foundation of inclusion in federal legislation and litigation. In CurranC. MPetersenA. J. (Eds.), The handbook of research on classroom diversity and inclusive education practice (pp. 27–52). IGI Global.
29.
YellM. L.CollinsJ.KumpieneG.BatemanD. (2020). The individualized education program: Procedural and substantive requirements. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(5), 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920906592
YellM. L.PrinceA. T. (2022). Why the continuum of alternative placements is essential. In KauffmanJ. M. (Ed.), Revitalizing special education (pp. 59–78). Emerald Publishing Limited.
32.
ZirkelP. A. (2017). Failure to implement the IEP: The third dimension of FAPE under the IDEA. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 28(3), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207317732582
