Law Analysis Part II
Stephanie Schick
Liberty University
EDUC 521
Dr. Torry Pitchford, Online Faculty
Running head: LAW ANALYSIS PART II 1
LAW ANALYSIS PART II 2
Introduction
Claxton (2018) stated, “IDEA is a law that includes six main principles to guarantee that
all children with disabilities… are provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) that
meets their individual needs” (p. 4). These six main principles are: Free Appropriate Public
Education, Appropriate Evaluation, Individualized Education Plan, Least Restrictive
Environment, Parent Participation, and Procedural Protections. “IDEA guarantees a free and
appropriate education in the K-12 setting in the least restrictive environment, and schools are
legally accountable for identifying student’s needs, determining modification and
accommodations, and implementing a plan via each student’s IEP” (Claxton, 2018, p. 5).
Unfortunately, there have been many instances where children with special needs did not receive
an appropriate education, including not obtaining proper accommodations or modifications, or
not including involving the child’s parent in the IEP process. This paper covers the background
and facts, rulings, and implications to special education regarding two special education court
cases where two students were not given access to a FAPE.
Landmark Court Case #1: Doug C. v. Hawaii Department of Education
Background. According to Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., and Losinski, M. (2015), “The
most basic of all the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act (IDEA; 2004) is that parents are full and equal participants with the school district personnel
in the development of their child’s Individualized Education Program…” (p. 118). In the case of
Doug C. v. Hawaii Department of Education, Doug, the father of an 18-year-old student with
autism sued the Hawaii Department of Education. He believed that the department failed to
comply with IDEA. Doug was unable to attend the original IEP meeting and requested that it be
rescheduled. The department rescheduled the meeting, but Doug was unable to attend that
LAW ANALYSIS PART II 3
meeting as well. Again, Doug requested the meeting be rescheduled. The special education
coordinator decided it would be easier to hold the meeting without Doug since 13 additional
team members would need to change their schedules to accommodate the meeting before the
pending IEP deadline. At the follow-up meeting Doug declined the new IEP because his son’s
high school was changed without his input (Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., & Losinski, M., 2015).
Rulings. Doug filed a request for a due process hearing under IDEA. The claim was
dismissed on the basis that his child was not denied FAPE. The district court upheld the original
hearing officer’s decision, but Doug appealed again. The Ninth Circuit overturned the district’s
courting ruling (Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., & Losinski, M., 2015).
Implications to Special Education. The Ninth Circuit stated that it is required to include
a child’s parent(s) in the IEP creation process unless the parent refuses to participate. Difficulty
in scheduling an IEP meeting does not excuse this requirement. In addition, the attendance of the
child’s parent should take precedence over the attendance of school staff personnel and deadlines
(Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., & Losinski, M., 2015).
Landmark Court Case #2: Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District
Background. According to Prince, A. M. T., Yell, M. L., and Katsiyannis A. (2018), “…
IDEA defined FAPE as special education and related services that are of no cost to a student’s
parents, meet state educational standards, include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or
secondary education, and are provided in conformity with a student’s IEP…” (p. 322). FAPE is
at the foundation of IDEA and can look differently for each student depending on what their
needs are. In the case of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, Endrew was a fifth-grade
student with autism. He was put into a private school because his parents did not believe that the
public school was adequately serving him. Endrew attended Firefly Autism House and his
LAW ANALYSIS PART II 4
parents sued for reimbursement of the cost of the school’s tuition and all other related expenses
to his education under IDEA. IDEA states that if the public school cannot meet the needs of a
child with special needs, the parents can enroll their child in a private school and seek
reimbursement for tuition and other related expenses (Prince, A. M. T., Yell, M. L., &
Katsiyannis A., 2018).
Rulings. Endrew’s case went to an Administrative Law Judge for review. The judge
declined the request for reimbursement stating that Endrew’s public school did provide him with
FAPE as required by IDEA. The district court then confirmed the judge’s ruling stating that
Endrew’s parents did not provide proof that Endrew was not provided with FAPE. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed. The Supreme Court then got involved and gave
the case back to the Tenth Circuit demanding they apply more educational benefit to Endrew’s
family (Prince, A. M. T., Yell, M. L., & Katsiyannis A., 2018).
Implications to Special Education. The Court stated that the purpose of a student’s IEP
is to create a foundation for a plan in which the student can make progress academically and
functionally. Additionally, the IEP must address all needs of the student, include measurable
annual goals, include measures for monitoring progress, and be appropriate for the student’s
needs, but also give the student a chance to be challenged (Prince, A. M. T., Yell, M. L., &
Katsiyannis A., 2018).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is important to understand the laws when it comes to special education.
According to Claxton (2018), “Understanding current law regarding students with special needs
will help to ensure that these students and their families are afforded their rights” (p. 4). Claxton
(2018) continues with, “Additionally, practicing lawful requirements will help meet the needs of
LAW ANALYSIS PART II 5
students with disabilities by helping educators to be intentional in developing effective IEPs for
these students. This is why IDEA exists” (p. 4). Educators can be sure that they are upholding the
law and effectively meeting the needs of their students by making sure that they know the law.
Additionally, educators can create a positive IEP experience and avoid going to court by
establishing and maintaining a positive, appropriate relationship with everyone involved in the
IEP process, including parents (Claxton, 2018).
LAW ANALYSIS PART II 6
References
Claxton, B. L. (2018). Planning, writing, and implementing IEPs: A Christian approach.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt
Prince, A. M. T., Yell, M. L., & Katsiyannis A. (2018). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School
District (2017): The U.S. Supreme Court and special education. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 53(5), 321-324. doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1177/1053451217736867
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., & Losinski, M. (2015). Doug C. v. Hawaii Department of
Education: Parental participation in IEP development. Intervention in School and Clinic,
51(2), 118-121. doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1177/1053451214560894
