FAPE Case Study

While IDEA is a federal law, it places the responsibility of providing a free and appropriate public education to the local education agencies and the individual states. In accordance with the 10th amendment, establishing and overseeing a public education system is a power for individual states. While IDEA contains guidelines for what constitutes a free and appropriate education (FAPE) for students with disabilities, it does not dictate how FAPE should be determined. It is the responsibility of the IEP team and local school agencies to determine what FAPE is for each disabled child. There have been a multitude of court cases challenging individual schools, local education agencies, and individual states with regard to providing FAPE under IDEA or its predecessor EHA. These cases have provided case
Tatro (1984), the Supreme Court created the medical exception rule which stated the local education agency must provide and fund all support services necessary unless a physician is needed to provide the service. Burlington School Committee v. Massachusetts Department of Education (1985) gave parents the right to reimbursement of private school tuition in certain situations such as if the school district’s offer didn’t meet the definition of FAPE and the private school placement did give FAPE. In 1999, Cedar Rapids v. Garret F, the Supreme Court ruled that cost is not a factor when reviewing related services, in this case nursing services, provided to individuals with disabilities. “If the student needs the services to attend school and those services don’t meet the medical exception test the school must provide the services” (Top Ten Special Education Supreme Court Cases). Additional court cases that have created case law for future IDEA and FAPE