“FAPE means special education and related services that are provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; meet the standards of the [State]; include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education; and are provided in conformity with an individualized education program (IEP).” [34 C.F.R. § 300.17]
In March 2017 the US Supreme Court, in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, clarified the FAPE standard and ruled unanimously that IEPs must be "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress in light of the child's circumstances." The Court rejected the petitioner's view that the IDEA requires schools to provide educational opportunities for children with disabilities that are "substantially equal to the opportunities afforded [to] children without disabilities." However, the Court also rejected the view that schools, in order to meet their obligations under the IDEA, only have to provide "merely more than de minimis" education program to a student with a disability. The Court ruled that the "de minimis" test is not demanding enough, and said cogently that "[i]t cannot be right that the IDEA generally contemplates grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who are fully integrated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for children who are not."
The purpose of the IDEA is “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education (FAPE) that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.” [34 C.F.R. § 300.1(a)]
The regulations that implement the IDEA state that “the primary focus of the State’s monitoring activities must be on improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities,” and also on ensuring that schools meet IDEA requirements, “with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities.” [34 C.F.R. § 300.600(b)]
What it is:
A general agreement
What all teams need to work toward
What it isn’t:
A popular vote where majority rules
Unanimous
Unilateral
When consensus is not reached, the decision is made by the public agency representative (typically special education director or principal)
*The school/district is responsible for the IEP and have to offer a reasonable services and goals*
IEP Document
Is a written statement for a student with a disability
Is developed by the student’s IEP team
Must be reasonably calculated to provide a FAPE
Must be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, at least annually
MUST BE IMPLEMENTED AS WRITTEN
Must be in effect at the beginning of the school year
Must be provided to the parent at no charge
In developing an IEP, teams must consider:
The student’s strengths
The parents’ concerns
The results of the student’s most recent evaluation
The student’s academic, developmental, and functional needs
Meeting Agenda
Facility prepared - look at seating arrangement
Staff invited early - don’t surprise your staff
Invite Related Services at least 2 weeks in advance
Documents printed
Staff meeting prior to IEP or MET meetings for staff to prepare
eIEPPRO Meeting Agenda
Be careful to not turn IEP meetings into:
Parent Teacher Conference
Meeting with the principal
Discussing other students
Discussing school policy/procedures
Family Intervention
Meaningful IEPs that will help a student eventually:
Have higher achievement
Graduate from HS
Move on in education/training
Gain meaningful employment