This article delineates the four successive dimensions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) central obligation of “free appropriation public education” that the courts have developed thus far: (a) procedural, (b) substantive, (c) incomplete implementation of the last Individualized Education Program (IEP), and (d) incomplete implementation of the next IEP. This current snapshot cites illustrative cases and, to the extent available, empirical analyses. The final recommendation warns against lowering practice and policies to the minimum legal standards for each of these four “faces,” instead using them as organizing counter-markers for a proactive professional orientation.
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
2.
Board of Education of Yorktown Central School District v. C.S., 357 F. Supp. 3d 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), aff’d on other grounds, 990 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2021).
3.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).
4.
Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2000).
5.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401–1419 (2018).
6.
L.J. v. School Board of Broward County, 927 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2019).
7.
MoranW. (2020). The IDEA demands more: A review of FAPE litigation after Endrew F. N.Y.U. Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 22, 495–562.
8.
Murray v. Montrose County School District RE-1J, 51 F.3d 921 (10th Cir. 1995).
9.
R.F. v. Cecil County Public Schools, 919 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2019).
10.
Sytsema v. Academy School District, 538 F.3d 1306 (10th Cir. 2008).
Van Duyn v. Baker School District 5J, 502 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2007).
13.
ZirkelP. A. (2016). Parental participation: The paramount procedural requirement under the IDEA?Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, 15, 1–36.
14.
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.
15.
ZirkelP. A. (2019a). The aftermath of Endrew F.: An outcomes analysis two years later. West’s Education Law Reporter, 364, 1–13.
16.
ZirkelP. A. (2019b). A comparison of the IDEA’s dispute resolution processes—Complaint procedures and impartial hearings: An Update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 369, 550–563.
17.
ZirkelP. A.HetrickA. (2016). Which procedural parts of the IEP process are most judicially vulnerable?Excep-tional Children, 83, 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916651849
18.
ZirkelP. A.JohnsonB. L. (2011). The “explosion” in education litigation: An updated analysis. West’s Education Law Reporter, 265, 1–8.
