8 Special Education Court Cases that Every Parent and Teacher Should Know

Many parents, as they learn the IEP process, begin to understand that IDEA is the main law that defines IEPs and special education. Of course, state regulations have a role in it too.

But, so do Supreme Court and Federal Court cases. Over the years, these cases have been instrumental in helping to define things for our kids that were not defined by IDEA.

In fact, the term “FAPE” itself was defined by a special education court case.

I’ve never been one to quote laws or toss around case law details in an IEP meeting, as an advocate. Still, I believe it’s essential for any good advocate to know what the laws and special education court cases are.

It’s been my experience that many teachers and school staff do not know IDEA or case law either. They may have received a course or two on it in college, but that’s about it. Once they joined a school staff, they tend to listen to the older, more experienced teachers that are there before them.

Often, this can result in an unfortunate case of “whisper down the alley.” Do you remember that childhood game? One child whispers something to the child next to them, and so on. Then, the last child in the line says the phrase, and quite often it is different from the original sentence.

I find this is a great analogy of how IEP misinformation gets passed around schools. It’s not usually done with malicious intent. It’s a matter of one person thought they had the correct information, so they passed it on. And so did the next person.

Special Education Court Cases

I originally wrote this after Supreme Court Justice Scalia passed away. And, subsequently, the nominee that then President Barack Obama was blocked by the Republican-controlled Senate.

I originally wrote this post right around the time of Scalia’s passing. Since then, we have had the Endrew F Case.

Endrew F was important not only because it helped define FAPE, but because it was an early and unanimous decision.

These things matter! While you may not wish to be involved in politics, every year the United States Supreme Court hears a case about special education and makes a ruling.

Did you know that there dozens, if not hundreds, of Supreme Court cases that changed Special Education?

There’s a lot of talk right now about the Supreme Court, expanding the Supreme Court and so on. And maybe, with all the “noise” out there, you’re ignoring it. Maybe you think it doesn’t apply to you. But, the Supreme Court has handed down some very important decisions regarding Special Education.

I don’t know what the actual breakdown is–how many cases that are heard by the SCOTUS are special education cases, as a percentage. But, it’s enough that we do need to be concerned about who is deciding. This is exactly why all Special Needs parents need to be involved in advocacy.

IDEA sets the framework for what schools should be doing. And state regulations may further define it for us or give more details. But much of the nitty-gritty is still determined by case law. And this is only SCOTUS case law that I am presenting, just because we have a SCOTUS vacancy right now.

There is still much fascinating information in the federal district courts. Many parties choose to stop after a federal decision. Or, the SCOTUS can refuse to hear the case, thus cementing the Federal court decision.

Federal Court Cases about Special Education

Before I get to the Supreme Court cases, I want to give a brief overview of the federal special education court cases.

Mind you, I’m not a lawyer or a law professor, nor do I play one on the internet. This is intended for information or entertainment uses only.

But the process (your IEP Procedural Safeguards) goes something like this:

1. You and your IEP team come to an impasse over your child’s IEP.
2. You file for Due Process.
3. Due Process happens and a Hearing Officer (different states may call them something else, like administrative judge) renders a decision.
4. You prevail (or win) at Due Process, or you don’t.
5. The losing party can choose to appeal. They can choose an appeal at the state level or federal level.
6. If the filing party chooses a federal appeal, it is held within the Federal Circuit in which it happened. We have 13 Federal Circuits.
7. Depending on the outcome of the appeal, the decision made by that Federal judge could be known as “precedent setting” and change the legal expectation. But, only for that particular circuit!
8. The losing party at the Federal appeals level can then try and get an appeal to the Supreme Court. It is a lengthy and expensive process, and the chances are that your child will be long out of school before your case even happens.
9. What happens next–whether or not the Supreme Court even agrees to hear your special education court case or not, determines the outcome. But if they do, their decision is precedent setting, for sure.

I’ve oversimplified it, but that is how an IEP dispute even gets to the Supreme Court. There’s a lot more to it, and it has to be determined if your case even has merit and so on.

According to the online documents, Endrew F was a 5th grade student in 2010. The Supreme Court decision about his case was “handed down” in 2017, seven years later. That means his fate was in the hands of the court for over 7 years. And while the SCOTUS found in his favor, he was already in spring of his senior year at that point.

If a family chooses to do this, they are doing it for the kids who come after their kid. The child of the court case often doesn’t reap the benefits.

Special Education Court Cases

1954-Brown v. Board of Education

Provided an equal opportunity for all.
“Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”

Although this case was originally about race, in subsequent cases, it has been used and pointed to as a reason to include kids with disabilities.

1982- Rowley v. Board of Education

FAPE! SCOTUS decision was that the IDEA requires proposed special education and related services to be “reasonably calculated to enable (student) to receive educational benefits.”

The phrase “reasonably calculated” has generally been understood to mean that the IDEA does not guarantee any particular result—rather, the educational services proposed by a school district must only be reasonably likely to provide sufficient benefit to the student.

The key remaining question, of course, is how much benefit is sufficient under the IDEA’s FAPE mandate.

The Rowley case gave a little bit more definition of “appropriate” and related services, held the school district accountable for procedural violations that caused harm to the student, and it determined that grades are not to be the sole criteria in determining success.

1984-Tatro v. Irving Independent School District

SCOTUS determined that a child could stay in school despite his disabilities that necessitated that he have a catheter cleaning each day at school. Since a trained layperson can perform that procedure, it was determined to be a related service.

The case stands out as the court’s first attempt to define the distinction between “school health services” and “medical services.”

This was later similarly addressed in 1999 in Garrett F v. Cedar Rapids Community School District. The Court held that continuous nursing service is a “related service” that the school district is required to provide under the IDEA.

The Court also noted that an IDEA dispute “is about whether meaningful access to the public schools will be assured”, thereby repeating the “meaningful access” standard originally articulated in Rowley.

1988-Honig v. Doe

SCOTUS ruled that a California school board had violated the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (later became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) when it indefinitely suspended a student for violent and disruptive behavior that was related to his disability.

In addition, the court affirmed that the state must provide services directly to students with disabilities when local school boards fail to do so, and it further clarified “stay put.” Stay Put or Pendency, is the concept that a child stays put in their current placement while IEP disputes are resolved.

If you click that link, I further explain pendency. It can work for or against the child, depending on how satisfied the parent is with the current placement.

2005-Schaffer v. Weast

Ah, one of my favorites! (I’m being sarcastic.)
Supreme Court held that the burden of proof in a due process hearing that challenges an IEP is placed upon the party seeking relief. So, if a parent files for Due Process, then Burden of Proof is on the parent.

Some states have passed Burden of Proof legislation to put the burden on the LEA. Pennsylvania introduced legislation but it never went any place.

2006-Murphy v. Arlington School District
Supreme Court determined that parents who win in a Due Process hearing are NOT entitled to recover expert witness fees having to do with the claims established in Due Process.

Endrew F Supreme Court Case

Here is the recent OSEP guidelines on Endrew.

So, there you go. Several really important cases. And that’s only 8. I could go on forever.

I haven’t even touched on private placement and reimbursement…and there have been several cases determining various outcomes regarding private placement at public expense.

There have been other cases on stay put, pendency, related services and discipline.

Significant Milestones and Developments in FAPE Legislation

The framework for Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) has evolved significantly since its inception. The growth of legislation, combined with pivotal Supreme Court rulings, has played a fundamental role in expanding and clarifying what FAPE entails for students with disabilities.

Key Legislative Events

• 1973: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
  This landmark law was the first to safeguard the rights of students with disabilities. It prohibited discrimination based on disability in federally funded programs, including public education systems.
• 1975: Education for All Handicapped Children Act
  This legislation introduced the phrase “free appropriate education” for the first time, mandating that states use federal funds to ensure that children with disabilities receive an educational experience tailored to their needs.
• 1982: Supreme Court Case Rowley
  This decision established a critical understanding of FAPE by stating that students must receive “some educational benefit” from their education. While it emphasized the need for benefit, it did not guarantee the maximum achievable performance.
• 1990: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
  This comprehensive civil rights law required public spaces, including schools, to accommodate individuals with disabilities. The ADA aimed to ensure equal educational opportunities, mandating adjustments in policies and practices.
• 1997: IDEA Reauthorization
  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was updated to include provisions for transitional services for students aged 16 and older. It also mandated that Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) have measurable goals addressing both academic and functional needs.
• 2004: IDEA Improvement Act
  This legislation clarified FAPE requirements. It mandated that students with disabilities access the general curriculum, receive necessary accommodations, and have individualized services outlined in their IEPs.
• 2017: Supreme Court Case Endrew F.
  This ruling further refined the definition of FAPE by establishing that educational programs must be reasonably calculated to enable students to progress in light of their individual circumstances.
• 2020: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
  The pandemic posed significant challenges for school districts in providing equitable education and adhering to special education mandates. It highlighted the necessity for continued compliance with IDEA and ADA standards amid unprecedented disruptions.