With transition litigation on the rise in recent years, educators need access to current legal trends in special education. Traditionally, educators have been dependent on researchers and attorneys to report on the implications of legal cases to guide the education and services for students with disabilities. In response to this, the Three Dimensions of FAPE Rubric (FAPE3DR) was created to help educators analyze legal cases in a timely manner. Specifically, the authors applied this rubric to five recent legal cases that were decided in favor of the family or transition-age youth. Findings are reported within the scope of broader transition issues.
Conklin v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 68 IDELR 122 (N.D. W.V., 2016).
7.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).
8.
Forest Grove School District v. Student, 69 IDELR 240 (D. Ore. 2017).
9.
Gibson v. Forest Hills Local School District, 65 IDELR 298 (S.D. Ohio, 2015), 655 F. App’x 423 (6th Cir. 2016).
10.
GothbergJ. E.BrezenskP.Krefeld-FreierK. (2018, October). Living the dream: Building capacity for comprehensive age-appropriate transition assessment across settings. Paper presented at the Division on Career Development and Transition Conference, Cedar Rapids, IA.
11.
GothbergJ. E.PetersonL. Y. (2017). Creating meaningful, compliance, and defensible transition IEPs: Professional development guide. Greeley: University of Northern Colorado.
12.
GothbergJ. E.PetersonL. Y.PeakM.SedaghatJ. M. (2015). Successful transition of students with disabilities to 21st-century college and careers: Using triangulation and gap analysis to address nonacademic skills. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 47, 344–351.
13.
Hill v. District of Columbia, 68 IDELR 133 (D. D.C., 2016).
14.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, P. L. 114-38, 20 U.S.C. § 1414 et seq. (2006).
15.
Jefferson County Board of Education v. Lolita S., 64 IDELR 34 (N.D. Ala., 2013), 581 F. App’x 760 (11th Cir. 2014).
16.
Joaquin v. Friendship Public Charter School, 66 IDELR 64 (D. D.C., 2015).
17.
KatsiyannisA.CountsJ.PophamM.RyanJ.ButzerM. (2016). Litigation and students with disabilities: An overview of cases from 2015. NASSP Bulletin, 100, 26–46.
18.
KohlerP. A.GothbergJ. E.SterenbergA. J. (2019, April). Using planning to build capacity for collaborative data-driven decisions at the state and local levels. American Educational Research Association, Toronto, CAN
19.
LowenthalA. B.BassettD. S. (2012). Transition assessment: Using gap analysis to enhance effective transition planning. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48, 30–37.
20.
McHughM. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22, 276–282.
21.
Middleton v. District of Columbia, 72 IDELR 94 (D. D.C., 2018).
22.
MilitelloM.SchimmelD.EberweinH. J. (2009). If they knew, they would change: How legal knowledge impacts principals’ practice. NASSP Bulletin, 93, 27–52.
National Technical Assistance Center on Transition. (2016). Age Appropriate Transition Assessment Toolkit Fourth Edition. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
26.
O’BrienS. K. (2018). Did Endrew F. change the “A” in FAPE? Questions and implications for school psychologists. Communiqué, 46(5), 1–31.
27.
PetcuS. D.YellM. L.CholewickiJ. M.PlotnerA. J. (2014). Issues of policy and law in transition services: Implications for special education leaders. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 27, 66–75.
Phyllene W. Huntsville City Board of Education, 66 IDELR 179 (N.D. Ala. 2014), 630 F. App’x 917 (11th Cir. 2015).
30.
PrinceA. M. T. (2018). Three Dimensions of FAPE Rubric. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
31.
PrinceA. M. T.KatsiyannisA.FarmerJ. (2013). Postsecondary transition under IDEA 2004: A legal update. Intervention of School and Clinic, 48, 286–293. doi:10.1177/1053451212472233
32.
PrinceA. M. T.PlotnerA. J.GothbergJ. E. (2019). Current special education legal trends for transition-age youth. In BatemanD.YellM. (Eds.), Current trends and legal issues in special education (pp. 72–90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
33.
PrinceA. M. T.PlotnerA. J.YellM. L. (2014). Postsecondary transition and the courts: An update. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25, 41–47. doi:10.1177/1044207314530469
YellM. L. (2018, October26). Transition programming, FAPE, and Endrew: Implications for school districts and for transition personnel preparation programs. Keynote presented at the annual Division on Career Development and Transition Conference, Cedar Rapids, IA.
41.
YellM. L.KatsiyannisA.EnnisR. P.LosinskiM. (2013). Avoiding substantive errors in individualized education program development. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46, 56–64.
42.
YellM. L.KatsiyannisA.EnnisR. P.LosinskiM.ChristleC. A. (2016). Avoiding substantive errors in individualized education program development. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49, 31–40. doi:10.1177/0040059916662204
43.
ZirkelP. A. (2017). An update of judicial rulings specific to FBAs or BIPs under the IDEA and corollary state laws. Journal of Special Education, 51, 50–56. doi:10.1177/0022466917693386
44.
ZirkelP. A. (2018). An analysis of the judicial rulings for transition services under the IDEA. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 41, 136–145. doi:10.1177/2165143417732745
45.
ZirkelP. A.BauerE. T. (2016). The third dimension of FAPE under the IDEA: IEP implementation. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 36(2), 409-427.
