Special Education 201: What does FAPE really mean?

Since my earlier posts on Special Education law covered the really basic stuff,  this post will cover the next level up: What the heck is FAPE?

The actual text of the IDEA, and even the accompanying regulations, are (deliberately?) vague on this point.  After passage of the law, schools and parents disagreed on what FAPE even was, let alone whether or not it was being provided.  Is FAPE meant to bring kids with special needs up to the level of their peers - to even the playing field, as it were?  Or, is it designed to be an education that will enable that child to be self-sufficient as adult?  Different district and circuit courts used different formulas, and, as is often the case, where there's a split in the circuits, the Supreme Court is often willing to step in to resolve the matter.  They did, regarding FAPE, in the 1982 Board of Ed v. Rowley decision.



The District Court in the Rowley case had determined that FAPE was "an opportunity [for Rowley] to achieve her full potential commensurate with the opportunity provided to other children."  The school district appealed on that issue.  The Supreme Court decided that FAPE requires that the education "be sufficient to confer some educational benefit upon the handicapped child".  It "...should be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade."  Furthermore, "the intent of the [IDEA] was more to open the door of public education to handicapped children on appropriate terms than to guarantee any particular level of education once inside....We conclude that the 'basic floor of opportunity' provided by the Act consists of access...".  Kids on IEPs are not entitled to the best education (and indeed, parents are taught to avoid the word "best").  Only access through the school door.  This is sometimes referred to as the "Cadillac vs. Chevy" argument: you're not entitled to a Cadillac in your educational experience - a Chevy gets the job done.

Now, the matter didn't really end with Rowley.  FAPE cases are still being litigated.  But parents are often losing - the Rowley standard allows school districts to rest on the argument that they are providing "some educational benefit " - even if the child is, say, being passed from grade to grade just because the teachers are tired of him.  There's no mention of standardized testing, or documented improvement from grade to grade.  (These issues have come up since, and have gone both ways). I happen to think the Rowley decision was the wrong result.  First of all, aren't schools supposed to maximize the potential of all children, special needs or otherwise?? Is any parent satisfied with an education that provides her child "some educational benefit"?  I think not.

Second, again, IDEA is a civil rights statute.  It was designed to remedy decades of discrimination against children with special needs. To correct the wrongs of decades, Congress intended that kids with special needs receive additional accommodations, supports, and specialized instruction.  I believe that IDEA was intended to level the playing field - to help kids with special needs maximize their potential - whatever that potential might be.

There's a lot more that can be said about Rowley, and caselaw since then.  But let me leave you with a teaser - what happens when you read the IDEA with the rigorous, testing-and-standards perspective of No Child Left Behind?  Is the "some educational benefit" standard still adequate?