Toward a Systematic Review of Legal Cases: Secondary Transition and Students With Disabilities Over the Last 5 Years

Abstract

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.

Keywords

secondary transition IDEA 2004 special education policy IEP development

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albano

A. D.

(2017). Introduction to educational and psychological measurement using R. Retrieved from https://github.com/talbano/intro-measurement

A.W. v. Middletown Area School District, 72 IDELR 94 (D. D.C., 2016).

B.G. v. Ocean City Board of Education, 64 IDELR 105 (D. N.J., 2015).

Board of Education of the Wappingers Central School District v. M.N. and W.N., 71 IDELR 9 (S.D. N.Y., 2017).

Burden

J. P.

Peterson

L. Y.

(2017, June). Triangulation: Aligning meaningful annual goals with PSGs. Paper presented at the Colorado Transition Leadership Institute, Keystone, CO. Retrieved from https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/tli2017_triangulating_ppt_burden_peterson

Conklin v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 68 IDELR 122 (N.D. W.V., 2016).

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).

Forest Grove School District v. Student, 69 IDELR 240 (D. Ore. 2017).

Gibson v. Forest Hills Local School District, 65 IDELR 298 (S.D. Ohio, 2015), 655 F. App’x 423 (6th Cir. 2016).

10.

Gothberg

J. E.

Brezensk

Krefeld-Freier

(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.

Gothberg

J. E.

Peterson

L. Y.

(2017). Creating meaningful, compliance, and defensible transition IEPs: Professional development guide. Greeley: University of Northern Colorado.

12.

Gothberg

J. E.

Peterson

L. Y.

Peak

Sedaghat

J. 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.

Katsiyannis

Counts

Popham

Ryan

Butzer

(2016). Litigation and students with disabilities: An overview of cases from 2015. NASSP Bulletin, 100, 26–46.

18.

Kohler

P. A.

Gothberg

J. E.

Sterenberg

A. 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.

Lowenthal

A. B.

Bassett

D. S.

(2012). Transition assessment: Using gap analysis to enhance effective transition planning. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48, 30–37.

20.

McHugh

M. 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.

Militello

Schimmel

Eberwein

H. J.

(2009). If they knew, they would change: How legal knowledge impacts principals’ practice. NASSP Bulletin, 93, 27–52.

23.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Children and youth with disabilities. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp

24.

National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center. (2012). NSTTAC Indicator 13 Checklist Form A. Retrieved from https://transitionta.org/transitionplanning

25.

National Technical Assistance Center on Transition. (2016). Age Appropriate Transition Assessment Toolkit Fourth Edition. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

26.

O’Brien

S. K.

(2018). Did Endrew F. change the “A” in FAPE? Questions and implications for school psychologists. Communiqué, 46(5), 1–31.

27.

Petcu

S. D.

Yell

M. L.

Cholewicki

J. M.

Plotner

A. J.

(2014). Issues of policy and law in transition services: Implications for special education leaders. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 27, 66–75.

28.

Peterson

L. Y.

Burden

J. P.

Sedaghat

J. M.

Gothberg

J. E.

Kohler

P. D.

Coyle

J. L.

(2013). Triangulated IEP transition goals: Developing relevant and genuine annual goals. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 45(6), 46–57.

29.

Phyllene W. Huntsville City Board of Education, 66 IDELR 179 (N.D. Ala. 2014), 630 F. App’x 917 (11th Cir. 2015).

30.

Prince

A. M. T.

(2018). Three Dimensions of FAPE Rubric. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.

31.

Prince

A. M. T.

Katsiyannis

Farmer

(2013). Postsecondary transition under IDEA 2004: A legal update. Intervention of School and Clinic, 48, 286–293. doi:10.1177/1053451212472233

32.

Prince

A. M. T.

Plotner

A. J.

Gothberg

J. E.

(2019). Current special education legal trends for transition-age youth. In Bateman

Yell

(Eds.), Current trends and legal issues in special education (pp. 72–90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

33.

Prince

A. M. T.

Plotner

A. J.

Yell

M. L.

(2014). Postsecondary transition and the courts: An update. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25, 41–47. doi:10.1177/1044207314530469

34.

Rhode Island Department of Education. (2016). RI Indicator-13 Quality Rubric. Retrieved from https://transitioncoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/I-13-Rubric1.pdf

35.

Russo

C. J.

(2015). The importance of understanding school law. School Business Affairs, 183, 33–35.

36.

S.G.W. v. Eugene School District, 69 IDELR 181 (D. Ore., 2017).

37.

Somberg v. Utica Community Schools, 69 IDELR 94 (E.D. Mich., 2017).

38.

Special Ed Connection®. (2018). What sets us apart? Retrieved from https://www.specialedconnection.com/LrpSecStoryTool/splash.jsp#

39.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2017). A transition guide to postsecondary education and employment for students and youth with disabilities. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/transition/products/postsecondary-transition-guide-2017.pdf

40.

Yell

M. L.

(2018, October 26). 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.

Yell

M. L.

Katsiyannis

Ennis

R. P.

Losinski

(2013). Avoiding substantive errors in individualized education program development. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46, 56–64.

42.

Yell

M. L.

Katsiyannis

Ennis

R. P.

Losinski

Christle

C. A.

(2016). Avoiding substantive errors in individualized education program development. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49, 31–40. doi:10.1177/0040059916662204

43.

Zirkel

P. 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.

Zirkel

P. 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.

Zirkel

P. A.

Bauer

E. 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.