Running Head: COURT CASES IN COMPARISON TO IDEA AND FAPE Dent 1

Rowley and Endrew Take on IDEA and FAPE

Literature Review

Erika Dent

Dr. Lauderdale

Summer D

EDS 530
Court Cases in Comparison to IDEA and FAPE Dent 2

Abstract

Over the course of decades, the education system has evolved in many aspects, one specifically

being within the realm of Special Education. The laws of IDEA and FAPE have been under great

analysis within the special education community for many years now for its definition of the

term “appropriate” in relation to a child’s education and services. Over time, many court cases

have arisen across the United States Circuits questioning this term and its meaning in relation to

a child’s education; cases such as Rowley v. the Board of Education, which IDEA was

reauthorized based on in 2004, and just recently the Endrew F. v. Douglas County School

District. This study will analyze and identify how the term “appropriate” differs across the

varying circuits, and question if, with the recent ruling of the Endrew F. case, these differences

will become leveled to form one major requirement across the United States. Through this study,

many peer-reviewed articles will be synthesized in accordance to the overarching question and

topic of this paper; using their participants, methods, results, and conclusions as the main focus

of analysis. Overall, the research will be depicted through the explanation of the IDEA and

FAPE laws, the analysis of the statistics based on the amount of due-process hearings, the

varying circuits within the United states, the Rowley and Endrew cases, and future implications

that could define “appropriate” differently.

Keywords: Appropriate, meaningful, Individualized Education Plan (IEP), circuit,

education, Rowley, and Endrew.

Running Head: COURT CASES IN COMPARISON TO IDEA AND FAPE Dent 3

Review of Literature

Introduction

Over the course of time the laws of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

and Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) have been under great scrutiny at both a

federal and state level. The case of Rowley v. the Board of Education marked the way for IDEA

and FAPE as it caused the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the realm of special education and

formulate a much-needed foundation for interpretation. Nonetheless, post-Rowley, educators and

families are questioning its mark on the services provided under IDEA and FAPE. Recently, a

new case arose in-front of the U.S. Supreme Court, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School

District; the purpose of the case was to question the interpretation of the various circuits based on

the floor-level definition created by the Supreme Court during Rowley (United States Supreme

Court, 2016).

Within the realm of special education, one must be knowledgeable in understanding the

laws of IDEA and FAPE, and their impact on the students received education and services.

Through an educator’s understanding of these laws, he/she must also be aware of the situations

that can arise, or that have already arisen to form the way of these laws within the field of

education. As Smith (2005) stated, from IDEA inserting the word “improvement” within the

overall law, teachers are now required to be highly qualified within the field of special education

and in the ways in which the law applies to their daily tasks. Essentially, special educators need

to take into deep consideration the meaning of these laws, how they are implemented depending

on the state resided in, and why these laws have changed overtime. In doing so, not only will the

child then be able to receive a heightened level of instruction and services, but the educator will

also understand what specifically needs to be provided and the duties surrounding his/her career.
Court Cases in Comparison to IDEA and FAPE Dent 4

However, much of the current focus centers around the future of special education and

how the definitions and requirements under IDEA and FAPE can be maximized and set as a

standard for all states across the United States. Therefore, throughout this literature review IDEA

and FAPE will be discussed in specifically what the laws are and how the revolutionized Special

Education, due process and the comparison of such across the various states, the importance of

the Rowley and Endrew cases, the various circuit definitions and how they relate to Rowley and

Endrew, reexamination of Rowley and how this can impact students and teachers

learning/understanding, states that are newly constructing an “appropriate” education, and the

limitations found within the bodies of research.

The IDEA and FAPE law

Over the decades, Special Education has become a realm of growth and prosperity as

promise lingered within reach. Initially, the world of special education was built upon weak

ideals and debatable values. Nonetheless, it was not until the laws of IDEA and FAPE that

special education has grown and took on a promising future (Johnson, 2003). Before congress

had ruled in favor of IDEA, public law 94-142, or the Education for All Handicapped Children,

was set in place in 1975 to provide the specific needs and services for students with disabilities.

In accordance to Smith (2005), congress concluded that of 8 million children with disabilities

residing within the United States, one billion were not receiving a public education or services

and three million were being served inadequately. Originally, public law 94-142 motioned that

students would receive a free public education, the student and parents’ rights would be

protected, an education would be provided for students with disabilities, and effective efforts

would be made by school personnel. Yet, as many students were being underserved, the law was

then reauthorized to IDEA of 1997; within this transition, the focus turned to students being
Running Head: COURT CASES IN COMPARISON TO IDEA AND FAPE Dent 5

provided and free and appropriate public education (FAPE) within the least restrictive

environment (LRE). Therefore, students would not be segregated due to their diagnosed

disability, but rather work alongside their peers. Since then, IDEA has been reauthorized once

more within 2004 to focus more on providing high quality teachers that could provide an

appropriate education, increase funding for special education programs, hold the students

Individualized Education Plan (IEP) to high standards when assessing the child, increase due

process requirements, clarify expulsion and suspension within the due process timeframe,

decrease the classification of Learning Disabled (LD), and much more (Smith, 2005). Through

this reauthorization students would not only be provided more resources and services through

increased funding, but also properly assessed individually based on the goals and progress

reports of their Individualized Education Plan (IEP). In essence, as the law of IDEA has grown

throughout the decades, including FAPE, the world of special education has flourished and made

great improvement on individualizing an education based on each specific student’s needs.

Yet, IDEA and FAPE is heavily looked upon when questioning whether a child’s

education is truly appropriate to his/her specific needs. Although both laws are far from perfect,

they both have made the realm of special education grow to focus on the minute details rather

than the overall picture (Yell, Katsiyannis, and Hazelkorn, 2007). Essentially, through the

growth of the laws, parents and educators now take into great consideration the small aspects that

guide a child’s education and properly assess their growth. Nonetheless, when a parent does

question the services or education his/her child is receiving, educators and school personnel

quickly refer to the ideals of IDEA and FAPE. Over the course of the decades, IDEA and FAPE

have been under great scrutiny as it provides very broad ideals of how an “appropriate”

education truly defined (Yell, Katsiyannis, and Hazelkorn, 2007, & Zirkel, 2008). Essentially,
Court Cases in Comparison to IDEA and FAPE Dent 6

through IDEA, schools technically do not need to maximize the student’s potential, but rather

have them just receive some educational benefit (Johnson, 2003). With the lack of an adequate

definition or standard, many states and districts formulated a varied minimalist mindset in the

application of IDEA and FAPE. This then has caused a great increase in due process hearings

and litigations; Johnson (2003) analyzed that forty-four states have been through some form of

dispute in relation to the requirements of a child’s education.

Stated from Zirkel and Scala (2010), the primary tool used for dispute resolution, under

the law of IDEA, is a due process hearing. In regulations with IDEA, a due process hearing

involves many aspects but is primarily used to facilitate resolution based on a complaint within

the areas of identification, evaluation, or placement. The various aspects involved within a due

process hearing is whether it is a one or two-tiered system, if the impartial hearing officers

(IHO’s) are full time or part time, and the legal background of the people of the court. Through

Zirkel’s and Scala’s study, conducted in 2003, they found that many jurisdictions apply a one-

tiered system that includes part time IHO’s who are mostly independent contractors.

Additionally, they analyzed data to depict that many jurisdictions are also in favor of using an

IHO that has no special education law background. In relation to the study, Zirkel and Scala also

concluded that the top U.S. regions for the amount of due process hearings is the District of

Columbia, New York, California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Hawaii, Texas,

Massachusetts, and Indiana (Zirkel and Scala, 2003). Yet within Mueller and Carranza’s (2011)

study, the researchers have found placement, IEP and program appropriateness, assessment, and

eligibility to be the leading causes of litigation. From reviewing the information, Newcomer and

Zirkel (1999) stated that school districts often have prevailed 60 percent of the time in

comparison to the parents of the student. Therefore, from the proposed research and findings, it
Running Head: COURT CASES IN COMPARISON TO IDEA AND FAPE Dent 7

is difficult to wonder whether the due process hearing truly resolves matters in regards to a child

with disabilities education and why hearings are more prevalent in certain areas of the United

States in comparison to others. Essentially, a due process hearing is a tool meant to provide

peace and understanding between districts and families, yet over time it has been manipulated

into the initial forms of litigation based on the “appropriateness” of a child’s received education

and services and the varying definitions of the term “appropriate’ based by state.

Case Law Studies in Regards to IDEA and FAPE

Looking back to the laws that have developed and grown throughout the years within

special education, FAPE took on a key role within many due process hearings and litigations.

The overall purpose of FAPE was for school personnel to design a program based on the

assessment of a child with disabilities needs. To ensure that a student was to receive a

personalized FAPE, the student would need to have an IEP formulated that would specifically be

tailored to him/her. However, when first passing FAPE, congress lacked in the ability to truly

define any substantial requirements associated with its true purpose, rather it was solely defined

by procedures. As Wenkart (2000) stated, although FAPE entailed a free and appropriate

education be provided to all students with disabilities, the meaning of “appropriate” was often

disputed within due process hearings and litigation. One famous example that changed the world

of education was the Rowley v. Board of Education case that occurred in 1982 (Yell,

Katsiyannis, and Hazelkorn, 2007). Amy Rowley was a deaf student who struggled in receiving

the services needed for her to fully maximize her learning potential. Essentially the Rowley’s

rejected Amy’s developed IEP as she was refused a sign language interpreter within the

classroom with her. Initially, the parents hired a lawyer and went through the process of holding

a due process hearing, litigation, and then court action. At the court district level, many judges
Court Cases in Comparison to IDEA and FAPE Dent 8

ruled in favor of the Rowley’s stating that Amy did was not receiving the same opportunities as

her classmates, however as one judge rejected that notion the school district then appealed the

court’s decision and led the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. When the case was heard by the

U.S. Supreme Court, the judges denied the Rowley’s statements and concluded that Amy was

indeed receiving an appropriate education as she was excelling (as she was very intelligent), was

receiving an array of services, and the courts had recently shifted towards more conservatism

(Yell, Katsiyannis, and Hazelkron, 2007). However, the case was not centered around whether

Amy was reaching her full potential, but instead if her educational program was tailored to meet

her needs and provide her with a “meaningful” education.

It is still to this day that the Rowley case be referred to when determining the benefit a

student is receiving from his/her provided education and services. Due to the fact that congress

failed in providing a standard to the term “appropriate” or specify a level of educational benefit

that needs to be provided to a student with disabilities under IDEA and FAPE, state courts

needed to establish this on their own accord. In doing so, the states across the United States have

formulated and implemented various definitions of the term “appropriate” and supported these

differentiated requirements throughout many cases. As much as Rowley had changed the realm

of special education forever by questioning the provided education to a student with disabilities

with the analysis of progression in relation to an IEP, it has created a future problem to be faced

with on a state level. Instead, courts now propose that FAPE is being provided if the students IEP

is calculated to provide a “meaningful” education that cannot be “de minimis” but produce

progression, yet do so at a variety of applicatory levels. Essentially, just as the term

“appropriate” was undefinable by the Supreme Court, states now differ in views of the

interpretation of “meaningful” causing children with disabilities across the United States to
Running Head: COURT CASES IN COMPARISON TO IDEA AND FAPE Dent 9

receive varying educations. As Seligmann (2005) stated, certain states are providing a

serviceable Chevrolet, within education, as opposed to others that are providing a Cadillac.

As Rowley had changed the realm of special education immensely, during the time

period afterward more and more cases arose questioning the standards of education that a

specific student is receiving. Although many of these cases are relevant to the overall purpose of

this paper, only one truly stands out as it is the most recent and is comparable to Rowley as the

case went all the way up to the Supreme Court level; Endrew F. v. Douglas County School

District (Supreme Court of the United States, 2017). Within this specific case Endrew’s, or

“Drew’s”, family questioned whether the education he was receiving was “more than

deminimis” and “meaningful” to produce growth either within academics or life skills.

Essentially, although Drew was showing progress based on his IEP goals, the district

continuously noted that the progress was minimal, causing the district to leave specific goals in

his IEP for many years. Eventually, Drew’s parents refused to sign the IEP as the district

proposed to keep the same goals within his documentation, stating that he did not fully achieve

these goals yet after a few years of working on them. Drew’s parents eventually formed a case

pleading that he is not receiving a “meaningful” or “appropriate” education and is being denied a

FAPE. Over the course of the case being analyzed at the state level, Drew’s mother moved Drew

into a private school that educates students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD); from this

transition Drew’s mother was able to compare the IEP’s formulated for Drew and propose to the

courts how the two schools worked on achieving his goals with him in differentiated manners

with the lack of effort being emphasized at the public-school setting. The state courts had denied

Drew’s case and stated that he clearly was receiving FAPE based on the tenth circuits

requirements and definitions. In accordance to Khalil (2016), the tenth circuit states that a child
Court Cases in Comparison to IDEA and FAPE Dent 10

is receiving education progress if the student’s IEP is designed to provide “some” educational

benefit. It was then that Drew’s parents petitioned the case be analyzed by the U.S. Supreme

Court; although extremely rare for this court level to take a special education case, just in April

of 2017 they ruled in favor that Drew was indeed denied FAPE and that his family receive

funding for his private school education.

When comparing the cases of Rowley to Endrew, although both differ within many

aspects, they both had a great impact on the world of special education. Rowley was the main

turning point within special education as it caused the Supreme Court system to look at the

education of students with disabilities and form a general requirement for states to adhere to.

Although this requirement was broad in nature and interpreted in a variety of ways by all

different circuits, the case had caused other basic requirements to be asked of from each district;

such as progress reporting be supplied in relation to the students IEP goals, parents to be active

participants within the IEP, for notification to occur of an IEP meeting, and much more (Smith,

2005). As these aspects became relevant within the world of special education, Endrew’s case

arose within the news and took on the role of revolutionizing the requirements made from the

Rowley case. Essentially, Rowley shed light on what appropriate progress was and how it relates

to a student’s education while Endrew’s case requested a more detailed definition of what

“appropriate” entails. Rowley focused on the notion of what an equal education was and how

FAPE was provided to the student by the school district (Yell, Katsiyannis, and Hazelkorn,

2007). Whereas, Endrew questioned the adoption and meaning of FAPE by the lower court

systems and their specific interpretation of the Supreme Courts requirements (Supreme Court of

United States, 2017). All in all, both cases of Rowley and Endrew paved the way for growth and

prosperity within the world of special education; Rowley initialized the movements and Endrew
Running Head: COURT CASES IN COMPARISON TO IDEA AND FAPE Dent 11

made progress in revolutionizing the aspects of Rowley’s case that were questionable and broad

(Seligmann, 2005).

Circuits

As the amount of cases had arose since the case of Rowley, federal courts have now had

to compare the education these students are receiving to the circuit requirements in which the

student is located in. Essentially, a circuit encompasses multiple states under one federal court

jurisdiction. Therefore, three to four states would be grouped together in one section of the

United States to be labeled as a specific circuit; any cases that arise throughout these states are

then analyzed by one federal court system and compared to the requirements made from the

courts of that specific circuit. Take for example the third and sixth circuit within the United

States; the third circuit comprising of states such as New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania,

while the sixth circuit is made up of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee (Supreme Court

of United States, 2016). It is from these two circuits that the highest level of requirements was

formulated based on the term “appropriate”; these circuits focus primarily on students receiving

“substantial benefit” and claim that students receiving a more than merely trivial level of

education does not qualify the meaningful benefit requirement (Supreme Court of United States,

2016). Essentially, these circuits believe that IDEA was formulated in order for students to lead a

productive, independent life to the maximum extent possible, therefore by receiving a minimal

educational benefit students will struggle to attain such goals. However, five other circuits only

require students to receive a “just above trivial educational benefit”; the tenth, fourth, first,

seventh, and eleventh circuits. In essence, these circuits uphold that if a student is making

minimal progress, he/she is receiving a FAPE. Other circuits, such as the second, fifth, and

eighth, all agree to the “just above trivial educational benefit” standard, however have not fully
Court Cases in Comparison to IDEA and FAPE Dent 12

rejected the notion of adapting a higher standard. Yet, the ninth circuit is labeled to be “internally

conflicted” as it sways back and forth in implementing a heightened benefit standard such as the

third and sixth circuits (Supreme Court of United States, 2016). Meanwhile, the D.C. circuit has

no standard whatsoever and merely follows the Rowley case by holding that an IEP must

reasonably ensure an “educational benefit” (Supreme Court of United States, 2016). Therefore,

although the U.S. Supreme Court has made a specific requirement based on whether a student is

receiving FAPE or not, this requirement was interpreted and implemented in a variety of ways

depending on the circuits. As identified by Bailey and Zirkels study (2015), states such as New

York, Pennslyvania, and the District of Columbia all account for 61.9 percent of the 5,055

decisions under IDEA. Currently, this is the problem at hand, that Endrew’s case began to

revolutionize, as students with disabilities across America are all receiving different levels of

education and services.

When reflecting back upon the cases of Rowley and Endrew, one must analyze the

circuits in which their cases took place in and the requirements of these circuits in relation to the

court’s ruling. Take for instance the Rowley case; Rolwey occurred and was analyzed by the

second circuit, which holds students to the “just above trivial” standard of education. Essentially,

students within this circuit only need to demonstrate minimal progression in relation to their IEP

goals in order to be deemed as receiving a FAPE (Supreme Court of United States, 2017).

However, Endrew’s case occurred in the tenth circuit, which is known to have the most minimal

requirements for the court to justify that a student is receiving an “appropriate” education.

Within this circuit, students only need to demonstrate minimal progression and need to be

provided a merely “more than de minimis” education (Supreme Court of United States, 2017).

From Rowley and Endrew’s cases being presented in two circuits with such floor leveled
Running Head: COURT CASES IN COMPARISON TO IDEA AND FAPE Dent 13

requirements, they were automatically denied in their claims that they were indeed not receiving

FAPE and making minimal educational benefit, and as based on their circuits requirements their

children were meeting the standards implemented. Hersh and Johansen (2007) synthesized the

information presented from the Rowley case and compared the case to the fourth circuits

appeals. In doing so, the fourth circuit has deemed itself as providing a “just above trivial”

educational benefit, but implementing a higher standard time in and time out. In essence, from

comparing the case of Rowley to the fourth circuits requirements, the circuit expanded upon

Rowley’s tests and grappled with the idea of transitioning to a stronger standard being

implemented (Hersh and Johansen, 2007). Nonetheless, from being denied of their claims at the

state levels, both families continued to fight their child’s cause and receive justification from the

U.S. Supreme Court. Although only one of the two cases prevailed at this judicial level, both

made a remarkable impact on the world of special education and even enlightened society to the

issues that still occur. Presently, students are continuously receiving various levels of education

and services due to the differentiated requirements of the circuits. Students are essentially being

denied a robust education due to the state in which they live in. Yet, will this change in future

years and will the Supreme Court formulate general, detailed requirements for the circuits to

adhere to without room for interpretations?

Redefining IDEA and FAPE & the Future of Special Education

When analyzing the overall elements of the implementation of IDEA and FAPE in

regards to student’s education in the various circuits, it is easy for one to question why the

circuits are not leveled within their requirements. Rowley made a grave impact on the world of

special education as it changed the way for many students in receiving services based on their

needs. However, Rowley also had a respectively reverse effect on IDEA and FAPE today
Court Cases in Comparison to IDEA and FAPE Dent 14

(Johnson, 2003). As Soto (2016) stated, Rowley developed the “basic floor of opportunity”, or

“some educational benefit” standard that is now connected to FAPE. In doing so, Rowley created

a basic, low-leveled requirement implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court system; essentially

having controlling precedent over the circuits. It is based on the various circuits decisions on

how much they want to question the Supreme Courts definition and amend it to reflect upon a

higher level of education. Although the “meaningful education benefit” standard seeks courts to

individualize their decisions based on each child, law personnel and families question the totality

of this standard and state court systems yet determine a differentiation between “meaningful

education benefit” and “some benefit” (Soto, 2016). Therefore, who is truly to question; the

circuits for having various requirements, or the supreme court for formulating such a low-leveled

standard based upon Rowley? From this question, it is evidently imperative that teachers and

school personnel be knowledgeable about the laws that are implemented within their instruction

and classrooms (Smith, 2005). It is innate for a special education teacher to know about the laws

of IDEA and FAPE and how they have an impact on their students learning and needs, however

do they fully understand how IDEA and FAPE has revolutionized over time, led the path for

special education, and is still questioned to this day? In providing information and evidence on

these two laws in a step by step manner through the citations of famous court cases, educators

can understand the level of complexity surrounding IDEA and FAPE in relation to the services

their students are receiving and the intricacy of their careers based on their specific circuits

requirements. Nonetheless, as IDEA has grown over the decades so have the requirements of

special education programs; it is inferred within the programs that special education teachers

understand the essence of FAPE in relation to IDEA, implement research-based procedures,

Running Head: COURT CASES IN COMPARISON TO IDEA AND FAPE Dent 15

collect formative data to monitor progress, formulate sound IEP’s based on the individuals, and

receive meaningful in-service training sessions (Yell, Katsiyannis, and Hazelkron, 2007).

However, as the consensus still lingers as to whether the various circuits will eventually

develop and implement one general, meaningful standard of educational benefit, specific states

have already made progress in constructing a newly defined “appropriate” education. Take for

instance the state of New Jersey; the third circuit has implemented the highest standards of

education for students receiving FAPE. Therefore, New Jersey is holding its educators to

heightened requirements when formulating IEP’s and assessing the students based on their goals

to make substantial progress year to year (State of New Jersey, 2017). Wyoming and Michigan

are doing the same as they are questioning their circuits requirements and aiming to take on a

heightened standard (Soto, 2016). Essentially, Wyoming and Michigan are shifting to ensure that

all students with disabilities achieve a specific level of proficiency and make substantial

improvement in relation to their developed IEP (Soto, 2016). However, Florida is attempting to

revolutionize their standard of provided education under FAPE by analyzing the circuits

requirements in relation to the definition created by the supreme court following the Rowley

decision. Essentially, Florida is working towards creating a heightened standard through the

analysis of what this standard truly means and how it will differ from the basic floor level

standard created by Rowley (Henry, 2014).

All in all, following the Rowley case and leading into Endrew, FAPE and IDEA have

taken on not only newly defined definitions in order to create a higher level of standards, but also

a large amount of scrutiny. Weber (2016) stated that although the requirements created based on

Rowley have never been amended yet, the purpose of IDEA is to provide students with the

services needed in order to prepare them for further education, employment, and independent
Court Cases in Comparison to IDEA and FAPE Dent 16

living and prepare them to lead productive, independent lives. Although research and case

studies have concluded that IDEA is slowly taking on a newly heightened definition, there are

still many limitations found within the research regarding such. One large limitation found

within the research is based on the data portraying which states have the highest rates for due

process hearings and court cases based on IDEA; essentially, many databases, and even the U.S.

Department of Education, provide skewed information in relation to statistics of cases based on

IDEA (Bailey and Zirkel, 2015). Additionally, based on due process hearings, there is a notable

lack of uniformity within the data which decreases its reliability. Due to issues of dispute over

reported information, as many states withheld data, and prohibited categories, no true analysis

could be formulated (Mueller and Carranza, 2011). Overall, the limitations in relation to the

overarching study exist within data points as receiving accurate information is difficult.

Although information may be received in order to conduct studies with the purpose of comparing

states in multiple realms, the authors never truly know if they received all accurate information

from the databases and resources used. Therefore, when looking into the comparison of states in

relation to due process hearings, court cases, or even categories based on IDEA, although the

information is partially accurate, readers must ensure that the statistics are not 100 percent

reliable to make claims upon.

Conclusion

Relating back to the initial research question, the overall consensus is still debatable

however has shifted focus slightly. Although Rowley has changed the world of special

education, it has created a baseline interpretation of the requirements of IDEA and FAPE for

states to adhere to. Due to the definition provided by the Supreme Court to be so minimal, states

courts and the circuits had more room to create various interpretations. Therefore, although the
Running Head: COURT CASES IN COMPARISON TO IDEA AND FAPE Dent 17

initial question proposed targeted the circuits and their lack of creating a general, heightened

standard across the United States, the focus now shifted towards questioning why the U.S.

Supreme Court will not reevaluate their constructed definition from the Rowley era. Therefore,

in future studies, one must analyze the willingness of the U.S. Supreme Court to adapt their

definition to meet the amount of cases based on IDEA and FAPE, such as Endrew’s, and how

this could revolutionize special education again in comparison to 2004. In doing so, various

studies can be performed to determine the detailed differences between the circuits, based on

various cases being analyzed and synthesized, with the purpose of finding a commonality to

enhance upon for all circuits to reach a standard, viable definition.

Court Cases in Comparison to IDEA and FAPE Dent 18

Reference Page

Bailey, T. R. & Zirkel P. A. (2015). Frequency trends of court decisions under the individuals

with disabilities education act. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 28(1).

Henry, M. (2014). Constructing an “appropriate” education in Florida special education due

process final orders. University of South Florida Scholar Commons.

Hersh, C. L. & Johansen, I. M. (2007). Free appropriate public education in the fourth circuit.

School Law Bulletin.

Johnson, S. F. (2003). Reexamining Rowley: A new focus in special education law. Brigham

Young University Education and Law Journal, 2003(2).

Khalil, J. (2016). Circuit split over FAPE standard poised for resolution. Connecticut Education

Law Blog: Berchem, Moses, & Devlin, P.C.

Kotler, M. A. (2014). Distrust and disclosure in special education law. Penn State Law Review,

119(2).

Mueller, T. G. & Carranza, F. (2011). An examination of special education due process hearings.

Hammill Institute on Disabilities: Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(10).

Newcomer, J. R., & Zirkel, P.A. (1999). An analysis of judicial outcomes of special education

cases. Exceptional Children, 65, 469-480.

Seligmann, T. J. (2005). Rowley comes home to roost: Judicial review of Autism special

education disputes. UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy, 9(2).

Smith, T. E. C. (2005). IDEA 2004: Another round in the reauthorization process. Remedial and

Special Education, 26(6).

Soto, M. B. (2016). Access or success?: Wyoming special education and the hope of a new era in

appropriate education. Wyoming Law Review, 16(1).

Running Head: COURT CASES IN COMPARISON TO IDEA AND FAPE Dent 19

State of New Jersey. (2017). Z.R. on behalf of E. R. v. Newark Board of Education. Office of

Administrative Law. [Case Study].

The Supreme Court of the United States. (2017). Endrew F. vs Douglas County School District.

No. 15-827. [Case Study].

The Supreme Court of the United States. (2017). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District.

[Case Study].

Weber, M. (2016). New developments in free, appropriate public education for students with

disabilities: Policy and practice implications. The Commonwealth Educational Policy

Institute, 14(8).

Wenkart, R.D. (2000). Appropriate education for students with disabilities: How courts

determine compliance with the IDEA. Horsham, PA: LRP publications.

Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., & Hazelkorn, M. (2007). Reflections on the 25th anniversary of the

U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Board of Education v. Rowley. Focus on Exceptional

Children, 39(9).

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).

Zirkel, P. A. (2008). Have the amendments to the individuals with disabilities education act

razed Rowley and raised the substantive standard for “free appropriate public

education?”. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 28(2).

Zirkel, P. A. & Scala, G. (2010). Due process hearing systems under the IDEA: A state-by-state

survey. Hammill Institute on Disabilities: Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(1).