Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the U.S. Circuit Court cases following the most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision related to special education: Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. (2017). This article will be helpful for school leaders who are on the front lines of implementing special education law as several implications of the Endrew F. case are considered: (1) reasonable progress is the legal standard, (2) crafting an IEP is an individualized, fact-intensive endeavor, (3) parent involvement is critical, (4) beware procedural errors, (5) the law favors the LRE, and (6) be prepared to fully implement the IEP.

Keywords

special education law least restrictive environment individualized education program

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

A.A. v. Northside Indep. Sch. Dist., 951 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 2020).

Adam J. ex rel. Robert J. v. Keller Indep. Sch. Dist., 328 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2003).

Adams v. State of Oregon, 195 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 1999).

Bateman

B. D.

(2017). Individualized education programs for children with disabilities. In Kauffman

J. M.

Hallahan

D. P.

Pullen

P. C.

(Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 85–103). Routledge.

Blake C. v. Dept. of Educ., State of Hawaii, 593 F.Supp.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 2009).

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central Sch. Dist., Westchester County v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

C.D. by and through M.D. v. Natick Public Sch. Dist., 924 F.3d 621 (1st Cir. 2019).

Couvillon

M. A.

Yell

M. L.

Katsiyannis

(2018). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) and special education law: What teachers and administrators need to know. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 62(4), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2018.1456400

Cowin

(2018). Is that appropriate?: Clarifying the IDEA’s free appropriate public education standard post-Endrew F. Northwestern University Law Review, 113(3), 587–628. Available at https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol113/iss3/3.

10.

Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 2010).

11.

Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Woody, 865 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2017).

12.

Deal v. Hamilton County Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2004).

13.

Doe v. Lyme Bd. of Educ., 962 F.3d 649 (2nd Cir. 2020).

14.

Doug C. v. Hawaii Dept. of Educ., 720 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2013).

15.

D.S. through M.S. v. Trumbull Bd. of Educ., 975 F.3d 152 (2nd Cir. 2020).

16.

Durbrow v. Cobb County Sch Dist., 887 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2018).

17.

E.F. by and through Fulsang v. Newport Mesa Unified Sch. Dist., 756 Fed.Appx. 535 (9th Cir. 2019).

18.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S.Ct. 988 (2017).

19.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE 1, 290 F.Supp.3d 1175 (D. Colorado 2018).

20.

E.R. by E.R. v. Spring Branch Indep. Sch Dist., 909 F.3d 754 (5th Cir. 2018).

21.

Gratton-Fisher

Zirkel

P. A.

(2021). Ten legal lessons for special educators. Exceptionality, 29(1), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1727341

22.

Gregory K. v. Longview Sch. Dist., 811 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir. 1987).

23.

J.N., next friend of M.N. v. Jefferson City. Bd. of Educ., 12 F.4th 1355 (11th Cir. 2021).

24.

Johnson v. Boston Public Schools, 906 F.3d 183 (1st Cir. 2018).

25.

K.D. by and through Dunn v. Downington Area Sch. Dist., 904 F.3d 248 (3rd Cir. 2018).

26.

Lake

B. J.

Billingsley

Stewart

(2019). Handbook of leadership and administration for special education (2nd ed.). Routledge.

27.

L.H. v. Hamilton County Dept. of Educ., 900 F.3d 779 (6th Cir. 2018).

28.

L.J. by N.N.J. v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., 927 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2019)

29.

M.C. by and through M.N. v. Antelope Valley Union 7High Sch. Dist., 858 F.3d. 1189 (9th Cir. 2018).

30.

M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High Sch. Dist., 858 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2017).

31.

M.L. by Leiman v. Smith, 867 F.3d 487 (4th Cir. 2017).

32.

Mr. P. v. West Hartford Bd. of Educ., 885 F.3d 735 (2nd Cir. 2018).

33.

N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary Sch. Dist., 541 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2008).

34.

N.P. v. Maxwell, 711 Fed.Appx. 713 (4th Cir. 2017).

35.

Polk v. Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16, 853 F.2d 171 (3rd Cir. 1988).

36.

Pollack v. Regional Sch. Unit 75, 2018, 886 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2018).

37.

Rachel H. v. Dept. of Educ. Hawaii, 868 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2017).

38.

R.B. v. Napa Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 496 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2007).

39.

R.F. by and through E.F. v. Cecil County Public Schools, 919 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2019).

40.

Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983 (1st Cir. 1980).

41.

Somberg v. Utica Comm. Sch., 908 F.3d 162 (6th Circ. 2018)

42.

Yell

M. L.

Bateman

D. 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

43.

Yell

M. L.

Bateman

D. F.

(2018). Free appropriate public education and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School System (2017): Implications for personnel preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 41(1), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417754239

44.

Z.B. v. District of Columbia, 888 F.3d 515 (D.C. Cir 2019).

45.

Zirkel

(2013). The legal meaning of specific learning disability for IDEA eligibility: The latest case law. Communiqué, 41(5), 10–14.

46.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2021). The four faces of a free appropriate public education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 57(5), 355–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512211032627

47.

Zirkel

P. A.

Bauer

E. T.

(2016). The third dimension of FAPE under the IDEA: IEP implementation. Journal of the Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 36(2), 414–425. Available at

48.

Zirkel

P. A.

Hetrick

(2017). Which procedural parts of the IEP process are the most judicially vulnerable? Exceptional Children, 83(2), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916651849

Five Years Since Endrew F .: How the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal Have Applied the Endrew F . U.S. Supreme Court Ruling and Why This Matters for Special Education in Schools

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References