Rowley and Endrew Take on IDEA and FAPE
Background
• The laws of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Free and Appropriate Public
Education (FAPE) have been under great scrutiny in relation to the Rolwey v. Board of Education
case and the Endrew v. Douglas County School District case.
• Rowley paved the way for IDEA and its reauthorization within 2004, however also provided a • Direct• in-text
“floor level” requirement under IDEA for all students (United States Supreme Court, 2016).
• The United States Supreme Court (2016) portrayed the comparison of the Rowley case to the
Endrew case and their impact on the world of Special Education. Nonetheless, throughout the
literature, the need for further research based on if the U.S. Supreme Court will formulate a higher-
level requirement under the law of IDEA is brought up along with the limitations of the varying
definitions of the circuits.
• Endrew questioned the basic level requirement of IDEA in relation to the various circuits and
aimed for the U.S. Supreme Court to raise the bar of the previously formulated requirements.
• The requirements of IDEA and FAPE rely upon the teacher and school districts provided
resources and services. Therefore, it is imperative that school personnel be knowledgeable within the Case Law Studies in Regards to IDEA and FAPE
law of Special Education in accordance to their students needs (Smith, 2005).
• Smith (2005) discusses the importance of the word “improvement” being added into the definition •
of IDEA and how this relates to the increased requirements of teachers and school personnel.
• The main process of litigation used within cases questioning the laws of IDEA and FAPE is a due
process hearing.
• The literature review contains information and research pertaining to the laws of IDEA and FAPE,
how the cases revolutionized the world of Special Education, the due process hearing system and a
comparison between states, the various circuits and their relation to the cases, a reexamination of
Rowley and how this could impact students and teachers, constructing an “appropriate” education,
and the limitations found throughout the bodies of research.
Purpose
• Recently, in April 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the term “de minimis” with the
purpose of creating a more challenging education for students with disabilities at any ability level.
• The main purpose of the literature review is to question how the terms “appropriate” and “de
minimis” vary throughout the U.S. based on the differentiated circuits and will all circuits be required •
to provide a high-level, equal standard of education or will it continue to vary.
• Through the research question, the literature review will exemplify the limitations of
the findings and statements within the research, the strengths and weaknesses of the
research based on the various topics, the impact the research has upon students
learning and the field of Special Education, and whether further topics need to be
explored within the world of educational research.
Methods
• In order to complete the literature review, peer-reviewed research articles and studies were used to
prove the overarching question in relation to the various topics included throughout the paper.
•The articles were implemented throughout the paper in a lateral system where the
information could build upon itself to prove the overall question, limitations, strengths and
weaknesses, and need for further study.
• The peer-reviewed research articles were found using online databases. The Monmouth
University database was utilized to find articles within the EBSCO and ERIC databases, whereas
Google Scholar was additionally used.
•When locating the peer-reviewed research articles, it was specified that the articles needed to weaknesses, contributions to student learning, and consensus are all stated.
be peer-reviewed and that they be from the year 2000-2017.
•Additionally, the terms used to find the utilized research articles were as follow: “Rowley”,
”Endrew”, ”circuits”, “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act”, “2004 reauthorization of
IDEA”, “Free and Appropriate Education”, “Due process hearings”, “De minimis”, and
“Appropriate education”.
Erika Dent
Monmouth University
Themes
The IDEA and FAPE Law Limitations
• This section discusses what the laws are and how they are being impacted. • A factor that was extremely prevalent in the impact of the research was the fact that
citations:
It was not until the laws of IDEA and FAPE that special education has grown and took on a
there are little to no studies conducted based on the overarching topic. The research
promising future (Johnson, 2003). articles only present information and findings based on the court cases in comparison to
• In accordance to Smith (2005), congress concluded that of 8 million children with disabilities the circuits and the U.S. Supreme Court’s floor-level requirement under IDEA.
residing within the United States, one billion were not receiving a public education or services
• The only quantitative studies presented were in relation to the number of due
and three million were being served inadequately.
• Although both laws are far from perfect, they both have made the realm of special education process hearings per state, and the comparison of the states to one another in
grow to focus on the minute details rather than the overall picture (Yell, Katsiyannis, and accordance to the statistics.
Hazelkorn, 2007).
• Another factor that impacted the location of adequate research was the fact that most
• 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 of the articles covered the same pieces of information.
Hazelkorn, 2007, & Zirkel, 2008). • Rather than gather articles that only discussed and analyzed the same
• Johnson (2003) analyzed that forty-four states have been through some form of dispute in
relation to the requirements of a child’s education.
information, articles that stated the same information from multiple
perspectives were used in order to truly analyze the overall question of the
• This section discuss the Rowley and Endrew cases and their impacts on the world of Special Education, literature review and make the limitations of the research, and need for more,
in addition to the questions the cases have now raised.
Direct in-text citations:
evident.
• As Wenkart (2000) stated, although FAPE entailed a free and appropriate education be Discussion
provided to all students with disabilities, the meaning of “appropriate” was often
• In relation to the overarching question and purpose of the literature review, the
disputed within due process hearings and litigation.
• As Seligmann (2005) stated, certain states are providing a serviceable Chevrolet, within findings presented the idea that Rowley did indeed change the world of Special Education,
education, as opposed to others that are providing a Cadillac.
however by the U.S. Supreme Court formulating such a floor-level requirement of IDEA
• In accordance to Khalil (2016), the tenth circuit states that a child is receiving education
from the case, students and families today are not adequately receiving an appropriate
progress if the student’s IEP is designed to provide “some” educational benefit.
• Although this requirement was broad in nature and interpreted in a variety of ways by all education or services.
different circuits, the case had caused other basic requirements to be asked of from each
• Essentially, the findings depicted that the U.S. Supreme court needs to
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 reevaluate their formulated requirement and raise it. From this, the circuits then
meeting, and much more (Smith, 2005). need to all adapt the same heightened requirement to make the education of
• Rowley focused on the notion of what an equal education was and how FAPE was
students across the U.S. more parallel.
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 • The overall strengths of the findings lies within the fact that the Endrew v. Douglas
systems and their specific interpretation of the Supreme Courts requirements (Supreme County School District supports such. Essentially, through the recent case, the U.S.
Court of United States, 2017).
Supreme Court was presented the need to revolutionize their own formulated
Circuits
This section examined the varying requirements of IDEA and FAPE across the circuits and discussed definition/requirement and level the education provided by the various circuits.
how they differ from one another in the education/services they provide students. • The overall weakness of the findings revolves around whether the U.S. Supreme Court
• Direct in-text citations:
will make the decision to adjust their definition/requirement based on the presented case.
• 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 In essence, it is now up to the Supreme Court to make this decision and proceed to not
circuit is made up of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee (Supreme Court of only heighten the level of education that students with disabilities receives, but also level
United States, 2016).
the provided education and services across the U.S.. Additionally, the findings are purely
• 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 qualitative; making the findings primarily based on theory and analysis. The findings
“substantial benefit” and claim that students receiving a more than merely trivial level of would be much stronger if the research had a quantitative component to it where studies
education does not qualify the meaningful benefit requirement (Supreme Court of United
were conducted and statistics were formulated based on the topic.
States, 2016).
• Yet, the ninth circuit is labeled to be “internally conflicted” as it sways back and forth in • Several aspects that are missing from the research are as follow:
implementing a heightened benefit standard such as the third and sixth circuits (Supreme • Quantitative studies and information.
Court of United States, 2016).
• How the circuits initially became unparalleled based on the education and
• 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 services they decide to provide their students and families.
States, 2017). • Whether, based on the recent decision of the Rowley case, the U.S. Supreme
• Hersh and Johansen (2007) synthesized the information presented from the Rowley case
Court will heighten their requirements under IDEA.
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 • The number of due process hearings by state after the change of IDEA in 2004
higher standard time in and time out. In essence, from comparing the case of Rowley to in comparison to Public Law 94-142.
the fourth circuits requirements, the circuit expanded upon Rowley’s tests and grappled
with the idea of transitioning to a stronger standard being implemented.
Implications
Redefining IDEA and FAPE & the Future of Special Education
• This section discusses how an “appropriate” education could be formed and the limitations, strengths and • The overall contribution of this literature to the field heavily relies upon the Endrew
case. With recent news of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of Endrew, it causes
• Direct in-text citations:
• As Soto (2016) stated, Rowley developed the “basic floor of opportunity”, or “some people of the field to question whether the U.S. Supreme Court will finally realize the
educational benefit” standard that is now connected to FAPE. need for them to heighten the requirement of IDEA that was previously formulated and if
• Although the “meaningful education benefit” standard seeks courts to individualize their
they will level the circuits.
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 • Additionally, the literature revolving around the circuits and their current
education benefit” and “some benefit” (Soto, 2016). varying definitions of FAPE have a strong contribution within the field as they
• Nonetheless, as IDEA has grown over the decades so have the requirements of special
act as sources of knowledge and understanding for those across the U.S.
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, seeking information pertaining to their specific circuit.
collect formative data to monitor progress, formulate sound IEP’s based on the individuals, • All of the other literature are used in support of the contribution in which
and receive meaningful in-service training sessions (Yell, Katsiyannis, and Hazelkron,
Endrew’s case made upon the field of Special Education.
2007).
• Therefore, New Jersey is holding its educators to heightened requirements when • One of the next steps of research could describe the U.S. circuits if their definitions
formulating IEP’s and assessing the students based on their goals to make substantial were all heightened and parallel. The research could explore how this would change the
progress year to year (State of New Jersey, 2017).
world of Special Education in terms of the amount of due process hearings, services and
• 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 living and
prepare them to lead productive, independent lives.
jobs created in certain circuits, and much more. The research would rely heavily on
depicting how the world of Special Education would be, likely beneficial, in comparison
to how it is currently.
• 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
• Another next step within the research could depict what specific changes the U.S.
Supreme Court would need to make within their newly heightened definition/requirements
in relation to statistics of cases based on IDEA (Bailey and Zirkel, 2015).
pertaining to IDEA in order for it to be beneficial for all circuits.
• 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 • Lastly, another step within the research could focus on quantitative measurements
many states withheld data, and prohibited categories, no true analysis could be formulated where studies are conducted, either on the comparison in amounts of due process hearings
(Mueller and Carranza, 2011).
over the years to the amount of cases in which parents win in comparison to the district
winning and why.