Law Analysis
Special Education Law Analysis, Federal Laws and Landmark Court Cases Assignment
School of Education, Liberty University
EDSP 521: Foundations of Exceptionality
EDSP 521 – Updated Spring 2025
Part One – Federal Laws
IDEA (2004) Section 504 (1973) ADA (1990)
Purpose All children with
exceptionalities have
access to a free education
that meets their needs.
Make sure the rights of
students with
exceptionalities and
parents are protected.
“Individuals with
exceptionalities are not
denied benefits or
excluded from federal
assistance.
Provides accommodations
and modifications so that
individuals have equal
access to education and
employment.
Provides equal
opportunity
employment for those
with disabilities the
same as
those without
exceptionalities.
Businesses to make
reasonable
modifications to serve
people with
exceptionalities.
Ages
covered
Birth to 2 years
3 to 21
Birth to 22 Those born with disability.
Individuals who acquired
disability in accident or
aging.
Disabilities
covered
Autism
Emotional disturbance
Visual impairments
Specific learning disabilities
Physical impairments
(wheelchair)
PTSD
Evaluation
procedures
“
Referral for special
education services
Evaluation to see if
student has disability
(within 60 days)
Requesting evaluation to
principal or team
member in detail
Team would use records
or evidence to determine
if eligible
Document specific physical
or mental impairment
(doctor or healthcare)
Recommended
through educational
services to have
exceptionality.
Dispute
resolution
Filing a complaint within
state
Due process hearing
File a complaint with
OCR
File a grievance with DOJ
File a grievance with
EEOC
Part Two - Court Cases
Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F. (1999)
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. was a case that focuses Garret F, a student
who became ventilator dependent and needed a nurse to provide services after a spinal cord injury
during a motorcycle accident caused him to be paralyzed from the neck down. Due to this, Garret was
EDSP 521 – Updated Spring 2025
required to have one-to-one medical assistance in order to attend his public school and his family
requested that the school district provides a full-time nurse to provide services throughout the school
day as it was required under the IDEA. The school district argued that the requested services were too
expensive and would fall under medical support rather than
educational support which falls out of the IDEA. This would be taken up to the Supreme Court.
After taking the case to the Supreme Court, the court had ruled that the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) states that public schools are required public schools to provide non-
stop one to one health services to students with disabilities that may not be solely for medical
purposes, but those that are necessary for a student to attend school. The Court would rule in a 7-2
favor of the IDEA provided these related services to these students with disabilities so that they are
provided an equal chance at accessing education in schools despite medical
needs.
As a result of the ruling, the IDEA had been expanded to create financial requirements to
provide services to students with disabilities who require specific health needs and to be included in
public school setting to gain a free appropriate public education. This in turn had improved the
inclusivity of students with disabilities in a public-school setting, ensuring they receive proper support
with help from the school district.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1 (2017)
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District was a case that focuses on Endrew F, a student
with autism and ADHD. His family was reimbursement from the school district after seeing an
improvement in his education after his switch from a public school in Douglas County to a private
school due to the belief that the public school failed to meet his educational and
Individual Education Program (IEP) needs. Endrew’s parents attempted to get the Douglas County
school district to develop an adequate IEP that would benefit his academic and behavioral needs. As a
EDSP 521 – Updated Spring 2025
result of his transfer, the parents believed that the school district should cover the costs of tuition
since they couldn’t provide Drew with a proper FAPE.
After several small courts ruled in favor of the school district using “a more than de minimis”
standard which implied that the IEP had covered the minimal educational and behavioral required
and is enough to confer a FAPE. Drew’s parents decided to take it to the Supreme Court where Chief
Justice Roberts would rule that an IEP is required to provide a free appropriate public education
(FAPE) so that a student is able to make appropriate and adequate progress despite a student’s
exceptionality. The Supreme Court would rule in favor of Endrew’s
parents and reject the “more than de minimis” standard that the lower courts ruled in favor of.
As a result of this court case ruling, students in a special education must be provided with an
adequate IEP that ensures that a student is able to make proper progress in their educational setting,
ensuring that the IDEA should give each student a chance to meet challenging goals that are laid out in
the IEP. It stated that IDEA and IEP should not be met with the de minimis standard and must show
meaningful progress and not just the child’s ability to attend school.
References
Claxton, B. (n.d.). Chapters 1-2. essay.
An Overview of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ADA National Network. (2025, September 9).
https://adata.org/factsheet/ADAoverview#:~:text=It%20also%20requires%20public
%20accommodations,Transportation
Rains, R. E. (1999). cedar rapids community school district v. Garret F.—scope of ‘related services’
under American Special Education Law. Education and the Law, 11(2), 121–126.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0953996990110204
Yell, M. L. (2019, November). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): Implications for
Educating Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders.
