What is FAPE?
The Justia Dictionary provides the following legal definition for “a free appropriate public education (FAPE)”:
A provision in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act ensuring that a child with disabilities has a customized
educational plan, meeting their unique needs (Free Appropriate Public Education, 2025)
FAPE- Special Education and Related Services are a public expense which meet the standards of the State Educational Agency, are
offered in an appropriate preschool, elementary or secondary school in the state, and provided in conformity with the
Individualized Educational Program of each eligible student with special needs.
Free- no additional cost to families for special education (ie. private evaluations requested by school district)
Appropriate- parents and school staff create most reasonable IEP for child
Public- if FAPE not made available in district, district must pay for a private option
Education- right of each child to make progress given his/her unique challenges
What are the 8 components of FAPE?
1. Statement of student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP)
2. Measurable annual goals, and sometimes short-term objectives
3. How progress towards annual goals will be measured
4. Provision of specific special education, related services, and supplementary services based on peer-reviewed research
5. Date special education services will begin and anticipated frequency, duration and location
6. Individual accommodations needed to measure student’s progress on state and district-wide assessments
7. Appropriate objective procedures for monitoring progress
8. How parents will be informed of progress (Yell, p.161)
How has litigation affected FAPE?
The standard for FAPE has changed significantly since the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 was signed into law. Initially, the concern was that children with disabilities simply have access to education. During the decades since then, litigation brought about by unsatisfied parents has established case law authority which dictates that a child with disabilities should have a more challenging educational experience to achieve something meaningful for that particular child.
Hendrick Hudson School v. Rowley (1982)- First special education case accepted by Supreme Court, which ruled school district does not need to provide the best possible education, but instead, a basic floor of opportunity to access specialized instruction and related services individually designed for educational benefit (Yell, p.165).
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School System (2015)- In this more recent case, the Supreme Court stated that an IEP should be calculated to enable a child to make progress in light of the child’s circumstances (Yell, p.172).
However, Justice Roberts stressed that “IDEA cannot and does not promise any particular outcome” (Yell, p.170). Courts created the 2-part Rowley/Endrew Test- to determine if a school district has fulfilled its duty to create a meaningful educational experience for a child with disabilities. The first question the court needs to ascertain is:
- Has the school district complied with procedures of IDEA? And then,
- Is the IEP reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of a student’s circumstances?
If a school district passes the 2-part Rowley/Endrew test, it will most likely not be liable for NOT providing FAPE to a student with disabilities.
How can teachers protect FAPE?
-
Methodology
The Supreme Court asserted that methodology decisions are best addressed by educational authorities and not the courts. If FAPE attempts to achieve progress and uses ongoing (formative) evaluations to show improvement, the courts tend to rule in favor of the school district when parents oppose the methodology being used.
- Peer-Reviewed Research (PRR)
The purpose of the PRR requirement in the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA is to encourage solid practices, validated empirically whenever possible. IEP teams should consider PRR in everything they plan: a) methodology, b) related services, c) supplementary aids, services, supports in general education settings, d) nonacademic areas like behavioral interventions, e) professional development activities, and f) individualized family service plans (IFSPs) (Yell, p. 174).
- Related Services
One of the controversial areas having to do with Related Services and FAPE is the issue of the medically related services. Medical school health services can vary greatly in complexity. For example, needs covered by FAPE could be distributing medicine, catheterization or tracheotomy care. The Supreme Court created a bright-line test after the Irving Independent School District v. Tatro case in 1984 to help guide the lower courts. The question of the bright-line test is: Does a physician need to do the service? If the answer is no, then a staff member of the school needs to be trained to perform the service to satisfy FAPE (Yell, p.180).
- Extended School Year (ESY)
ESY is required for FAPE to prevent harm from interruption, not to provide benefit. The decision for the IEP team should be made on an individual basis. No generalizations about what kind of disability would be eligible for ESY is permitted. Areas debated in courts relate to regression in academics, emotional and behavioral status, physical skills, self-help skills and communication (Yell, p.183). Recommended factors to consider are: degree of impairment, ability of parents to provide educational structure in home, availability of resources, student’s skill level and areas of curriculum in which a child needs continuous attention.
- Placement
Placement decisions are made once an IEP is completed and NOT any earlier. IDEA requires Least Restrictive Environment and a Continuum of Alternative Placement, both of which will be explained in the second part of this resource. It should be reviewed at least once a year or more often if the parents or teachers request it. Any changes to placement should be reflected in the current IEP, or a new IEP. In the case of a new IEP, parents must be notified and included in the decision-making process.
- Graduation
IEP team needs to meet before graduation, and parents must receive written notification because a change in placement and procedural safeguards still apply. IDEIA of 2004 mandates that the IEP team create a summary of a student’s academic achievement and functional performance before graduation and include recommendations for future employment, additional training or post-secondary schooling (Yell, p.185).
- IEP Implementation
The courts disagreed on a materiality standard (whether a school district failed to implement a significant part of the IEP), because by definition, every part of an IEP should be equally important (Yell, p.187). Therefore, the courts adopted a “per se” standard to help guide cases when implementation of the IEP is the issue. This new standard is quite simple: “per se” standard is a legal rule that does not need further analysis. Therefore, automatic denial of FAPE will occur when the IEP is not totally implemented. The implications for schools are quite serious if the school does not follow through entirely with the IEP plans that are devised along with a student’s parents. The school district could be held liable for failure to provide a student with FAPE.
References
ENDREW F. v. Douglas Co. School Dist. Re-1, 580 US 386 - Supreme Court 2017 - Google Scholar. (2017).
free appropriate public education. (2025). Justia.com. https://dictionary.justia.com/free-appropriate-public-education
Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Rowley, 458 US 176 - Supreme Court 1982 - Google Scholar. (2025). Google.com.
Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro, 468 US 883 - Supreme Court 1984 - Google Scholar. (2025). Google.com.
Yell, M. L. (2019). The law and special education. Pearson Education Inc.
Create Your Own Website With Webador