Litigating a Free Appropriate Public Education

Abstract

Between 1993 and 1998 there were 45 published due process hearings and court cases in which parents of children with autism challenged the appropriateness of a school district's educational program for their child. These hearings and cases involved parental requests for school districts to provide, fund, or reimburse them for the Lovaas treatment program for their young children. The purpose of this article is to examine how these hearings and cases affect the definition of "appropriate" special education programs. First, we review previous legislative and litigative definitions of a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Next, we analyze the Lovaas treatment hearings and cases to identify factors associated with winning and losing decisions. Finally, we discuss the implications of these decisions to provide guidance to schools in adhering to the procedural and substantive requirements of a FAPE.

Quality of Individualized Education Program Goals of Preschoolers With Disabilities

“…The low mean on the GFS III measurability item and the exclusion of items based on no variance (all goals rated 1) provide further support for the notion that the high number of goals and the generalization findings may be associated with vague and general outcome statements. This absence of criteria for successful performance is consistent with prior findings (Fuchs & Shinn, 1989;Lynch & Beare, 1990;Yell & Drasgow, 2000). Results also suggest that Portuguese preschoolers' IEP goals do not appropriately focus on skills needed for participation in naturally occurring daily routines.…”

Computer-Assisted Interventions for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders within School-Based Contexts: A Quantitative Meta-Analysis of Single-Subject Research

“…Therefore, failure to provide a statistical summary indicating the amount of behavior change runs contrary to contemporary practice and leaves practitioners to rely on the conclusions drawn by the studies' authors. In an era when empirically validated approaches are routinely demanded within school contexts, it is crucial to differentiate between promising and evidence-based practices (Yell and Drasgow 2000).…”

Disciplining Students with Disabilities

“…The purpose of data collection is to provide objective evidence of program efficacy, assess student performance, and guide programming decisions (e.g., Deno, 1992;Fuchs & Fuchs, 1990, Yell & Drasgow, 2000. IEP teams can ensure that they provide meaningful programming by collecting useful data and by demonstrating that the data were used to guide sound instructional decisions.…”

“…Anecdotal data and other subjective procedures are not appropriate for monitoring student progress, and should never be the basis of a data collection system (Yell & Drasgow, 2000). The most appropriate data collection systems are those from applied behavior analysis (e.g., Alberto & Troutman, 1999;Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai, 1988), _in which target behaviors can be measured, graphed, and visually inspected to evaluate progress toward goals and objectives.…”