School Psychology Legislation and Legal Challenges: The Two Part Test

***Board of Education v. Rowley* (1982)**

In 1981, a case was heard by the Supreme Court about a young student named Amy Rowley. Although Amy was deaf, she had not been provided a sign-language interpreter through her Individualized Education Program (IEP) which was developed when she was in first grade. Her school district agreed to a three-week trial of Amy receiving interpreter services, after which point, services were discontinued. Out of concern that Amy would not receive educational benefits comparable to her peers, Amy’s parents appealed this decision, which eventually reached the Supreme Court. The final ruling of this case at the nation’s highest level concluded that her school had followed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act’s (EAHCA) guideline of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), despite the removal of interpretation services, because Amy continued to make educational progress without them.

As a result of this case, *Board of Education v. Rowley* (1982), a two-part test was created as a ‘litmus test’ to ensure that all children on IEPs received FAPE. The first part evaluates whether the school is in compliance with EAHCA while the second part checks to ensure that the IEP was “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” Subsequent to the *Rowley* decision, what became known as the ‘Rowley test,’ has been applied to similar cases by first ensuring that the school district has followed the law (part one) and, secondly, whether the student’s IEP goals were calculated to allow for progress to be made (part two).

**Evolution of Legislation: From EAHCA to IDEIA**

Just fifteen years after the approval of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and eight years after the Rowley decision, EAHCA was reapproved by the United States Congress in 1990 under a new name, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. IDEA was again amended in 1997 and reauthorized to its most current version in 2004, what is now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). A few notable updates compared to previous renditions of this legislation included access to highly qualified special educators as well as requiring IEP services to be based on empirical, peer-reviewed research; however, there are cases in which IEP teams are allowed some flexibility in whether they choose to include evidence-based interventions if the student under the IEP is still *reasonably calculated* to receive an educational benefit. Additionally, children who qualify for special education under IDEIA are required to receive both academic as well as any requisite social, emotional, and behavioral supports to ensure their ability to access the general curriculum.

***Endrew F. Douglas County School District* (2017)**

As much as the Rowley case regarding EAHCA was a landmark case of the twentieth century, the case brought by Endrew’s family in 2017 became the twenty first century’s landmark case before the Supreme Court. It tested the extent of the scope and the application of the newer legislation IDEIA. Endrew, a student in the Douglas County School District, had a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as well as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Due to Endrew not progressing academically, socially and emotionally in fourth grade, his parents enrolled him in a private school, the Firefly Autism House. Once enrolled at his new school, Endrew began to progress academically and behaviorally. Endrew’s parents claimed that his previous school had not provided him with FAPE, since his progress was stalled during his time there. Endrew’s parents filed a due process hearing, which is a pillar under IDEIA, where a family presents a case disputing a school’s action in the presence of representatives of the defendant and a hearing officer. However, the Douglas County School District was favored in court, stating that they had provided FAPE. His parents then appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, where the judicial system still held that the school district was in compliance since it provided Endrew with “a special education that was merely more than *de minimis*” and therefore still met FAPE standards. The *de minimis* standard referred to the threshold that a child’s IEP had to provide “more than trivial or minor educational benefit."

When appealed once more to the U.S. Supreme Court, Endrew’s parents argued that his initial school placement had failed to follow the Rowley two-part test since his IEP goals were not appropriately calculated for him to make progress. Despite the district’s continued argument that his IEP had been reasonable in predicting some level of benefit, Chief Justice Roberts and all of the Supreme Court judges unanimously agreed that schools were required to create IEPs that would “enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances." Since this time, *de minimis* is no longer a sufficient standard when determining appropriate IEP goals for a child with a disability. In other words, the bar to which the school system needs to strive for their students with disabilities should strive for had been raised.

1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 Couvillon, M. A., Yell, M. L., & Katsiyannis, A. (2018). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) and special education law: What teachers and administrators need to know. *Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth*, *62*(4), 289-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2018.1456400
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Hott, B. L., Jones, B. A., Rodriguez, J., Brigham, F. J., Martin, A., & Mirafuentes, M. (2021). Are rural students receiving FAPE? A descriptive review of IEPs for students with social, emotional, or behavioral needs. *Behavior Modification*, *45*(1), 13-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445518825107
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 McKenna, J. W., & Brigham, F. J. (2021). More than de minimis: FAPE in the Post Endrew F. Era. *Behavior Modification*, *45*(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519880836
4. ↑ 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 Yell, M. L., & Bateman, D. F. (2019). Free appropriate public education and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School System (2017): Implications for personnel preparation. *Teacher Education and Special Education*, *42*(1), 6-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417754239
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 United States Department of Education. (2017*)*. *Questions and answers (Q&A) on U.S. Supreme Court Case Decision Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1*. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/qa-endrewcase-12-07-2017.pdf
6. ↑ Maki, K. E., & Adams, S. R. (2020). Special education evaluation Practices and procedures: Implications for referral and eligibility decision-making. *Contemporary School Psychology*, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-020-00335-4
7. ↑ Yell, M. L., & Drasgow, E. (2007). Assessment for eligibility under IDEIA and the 2006 regulations. *Assessment for Effective Intervention*, *32*(4), 202-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084070320040201
8. ↑ Zirkel, P. A. (2015). Special education law: Illustrative basics and nuances of key IDEA components. *Teacher Education and Special Education*, *38*(4), 263-275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406415575377
9. ↑ Zirkel, P. A., & Scala, G. (2010). Due process hearing systems under the IDEA: A state-by-state survey. *Journal of Disability Policy Studies*, *21*(1), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207310366522