FAPE is broadly defined in the IDEA as special education and related services that:
1. Are provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge,
2. Meet the standards of the SEA,
3. Include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the state involved,
4. Are provided in conformity with an IEP.
The contours of an appropriate education must be decided on a case-by-case basis, in light of an individualized consideration of the unique needs of each eligible student. FAPE must be available to all children with disabilities residing in a state between the ages of 3 and 21, including children with disabilities who have been suspended or expelled from school.
‘Cadillac vs. Chevrolet’ analogy: According to a well-worn analogy from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, FAPE does not require a “Cadillac,” but it does require a “Chevrolet.” In other words, school districts are not required to maximize the potential of children with disabilities. Furthermore, districts need not cater to a parent’s preference and place the student in what the parent considers the “better” placement.
The Supreme Court made it clear that the IDEA does not require the best possible education. Referring to the minimal level of benefits that an appropriate educational program must confer, the Supreme Court termed the state’s obligation as being the provision of a “basic floor of opportunity.” The Supreme Court recognized that the IDEA is a floor of educational opportunity, not a ceiling. A state, however, may adopt a more demanding standard of appropriateness than the IDEA.
A district’s obligation to provide FAPE to a student with a disability is satisfied when the district provides the student with the personalized educational program necessary to allow the child to derive an educational benefit from that instruction.
Generally, it is not advisable for school districts to include non mandatory items in an IEP. An IEP is a document with legal, as well as educational, significance. Injection of superfluous information should be minimized. Moreover, when the “extra” items included in the IEP are programming or related services that are not required for FAPE, inclusion of the items may be not only superfluous, but also ultimately prejudicial to the school district. For example, a district may include in an IEP programming or related services that exceed the obligation to provide FAPE in order to be responsive to or settle a disagreement with parents. The potential for prejudice arises from the fact that inclusion of a particular service in an IEP may create an obligation to provide that service throughout the period covered by the IEP, regardless of whether it is necessary for FAPE.
Achievement of passing grades and advancing from grade to grade in a general education classroom is not necessarily an indication that the student is receiving FAPE under the IDEA. According to the 4th Circuit, an evaluation of the student’s circumstances as a whole is still required.
Excerpted from Special Ed eConnection newsletter from LRP
Document all contacts with parents. IDEA regulations require districts to keep records of all telephone calls, correspondence, and home visits made to arrange an IEP meeting at a mutually agreeable time and place. This is why completing the meeting contact information section of our KPBSD meeting invitations is required.
