What is a FAPE?

The important and sometimes confusing right to a "free appropriate public education"

Feb 20, 2025

In 1977, a young girl named Amy Rowley started kindergarten at a public school outside of New York City. Amy, like her parents, was deaf and often communicated using sign language.

The summer before kindergarten, Amy’s parents met with school staff to discuss special education services for their daughter. These supports included a sign language interpreter, which the school agreed to provide.

But on the first day of school, Amy entered the classroom to find no interpreter. School staff later told the Rowleys that district administrators did not think Amy required an interpreter, and informed the school that they would not provide one.

Source: Photograph of Amy Rowley as a child, Minnesota Administrators for Special Education.

Amy’s parents disagreed and felt that without an interpreter, their daughter would not receive her legal right to a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (I.D.E.A.).

The Rowleys sued the school district. They alleged that the school district failed to provide Amy with a FAPE and requested that an interpreter be put in place.

Meanwhile, Amy’s mother, Nancy Rowley, was determined that her daughter would not fall behind her peers. Ms. Rowley stayed in close contact with Amy’s classroom teachers to ensure that she knew exactly what was taught each day.

Ms. Rowley, a former teacher, spent hours reteaching Amy the same material taught in her classroom that day. As an adult, Amy would later describe herself as “home schooled” during this time.

Board of Education v. Amy Rowley

What followed is one of the most famous cases in special education law and, until recently, the guiding legal standard for how we interpret a child’s right to a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE).

Amy’s case was first considered by a federal district court in New York. The district court agreed with the Rowleys and decided that the school district failed to provide Amy with a FAPE when it did not provide her with a sign language interpreter.

The school district appealed the district court’s decision to the next highest court, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit also decided that the school district failed to provide Amy with a FAPE. The school district then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In 1982, Amy’s case (often called “Board of Education v. Rowley” or just “Rowley”) was decided by the Supreme Court. This was the first time that the Supreme Court considered what it meant to provide a child with a “free appropriate public education” under the I.D.E.A. Unlike the district court and the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court agreed with the school district.

The Supreme Court decided that the school district did in fact provide Amy with a FAPE even though it did not provide her with a sign language interpreter. The Supreme Court also interpreted the right to a FAPE to mean that a child with a disability only has a right to receive “some educational benefit” and does not have a right to an education that “maximizes” their potential.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1

In 2017, the Supreme Court reconsidered the meaning of “free appropriate public education” under the I.D.E.A. This case (called “Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1” or just “Endrew F.”) was about a child diagnosed with autism who received similar services year after year even though he made very little progress.

The Supreme Court stated that in order for a child with a disability to receive a “free appropriate public education,” the child’s special education program must provide more than just a little bit of educational benefit.

Specifically, the Supreme Court explained that in order to receive a FAPE, a child’s special education program must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” This program must be “appropriately ambitious” given the child’s unique learning needs, and must provide the child with a chance to “meet challenging objectives.”

In general, this interpretation of the right to a FAPE entitles children with disabilities to a greater level of educational benefit than the earlier interpretation. This new interpretation replaced the previous one.

What is the Meaning of FAPE Today?

After Endrew F., we can think about the right to a FAPE as the right to a special education program designed let the child make progress that is appropriate for them given their unique learning needs. Importantly, the right to a FAPE includes a child with a disability who is advancing from grade to grade.

This program should provide the child with more than just some educational benefit, but does not give the child a right to the best education possible.

It can be helpful to think about the right to a FAPE as falling along a scale. In the image above, the green arrow that says “appropriate progress given a child’s circumstances” is the current interpretation of FAPE after the Endrew F. case. The gray arrows before and after the green arrow tell us what a FAPE does not include when it comes to special education services.

The Supreme Court has found that under the I.D.E.A., a child receives a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) when their public school district provides a special education program that is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” The program must be “appropriately ambitious” given the child’s unique learning needs and give the child an opportunity to “meet challenging objectives.”

Failing to Provide a FAPE

We can think about the failure to provide a FAPE as falling into two buckets: procedures and program quality.

This first bucket requires that public school districts follow many important procedures and timelines under the I.D.E.A. (and any related state law). Failing to follow procedures and timelines may be a FAPE violation if the failure (a) prevents the child from benefiting educationally or (b) significantly interferes with the parents’ ability to participate in developing their child’s special education program.

The second bucket requires that a public school district provide a child with a special education program that meets the quality required by the Endrew F. decision. When a school district does not provide a special education program that meets FAPE standard after Endrew F., it is likely a violation of the child’s right to a FAPE.

If a public school district does not provide a child with a disability with a FAPE, the child may have a right to specific services, programs, or other supports to try to make up for the failure. These are called “remedies” which we will talk about in a later newsletter.

FAPE Checklist

It can be helpful to think about the many moving pieces relating to FAPE using a checklist. Below, I have adapted a very helpful checklist by Professor Perry Zirkel, an education law expert from Lehigh University.

It is important to note that although the I.D.E.A. applies to every state, different courts have interpreted the I.D.E.A.’s processes and requirements with some variation.

That said, the overarching requirements are the same across states and I hope that the checklist below may be a helpful tool when thinking about whether a child has received a FAPE.

FAPE Checklist

Did the school district fail to follow any of the procedures/timelines under the I.D.E.A. or related state law?
- If yes, go to Question 2.
- If no, go to Question 3.
Did this failure to follow any of the procedures/timelines (a) significantly impede the parents’ ability to participate in decisions about the child’s special education program, OR (b) deprive the child of educational benefits?
- If yes to either (a) or (b), there may be a procedural FAPE violation. Go to Question 3.
- If no to both (a) and (b), there may not be a procedural FAPE violation. Go to Question 3 to see if there is a FAPE violation relating to program quality.
Is the child’s special education program reasonably calculated so that the child can make educational progress that is appropriately ambitious given their unique learning needs?
- If yes, there may not be a FAPE violation relating to program quality.
- If not, the school district may have violated the child’s right to a FAPE relating to program quality.

Why Does All of this Matter?

Because the right to a free appropriate public education underlies many decisions throughout the special education process. For example, if a child with a speech language impairment requires speech therapy at school, the amount of speech therapy, location, and frequency will all be impacted by what the child needs under the legal meaning of “free appropriate public education.”

Key Takeaways

The process of securing the special education services that a child needs in order to receive a FAPE can be a deeply emotional.

Although the I.D.E.A. encourages collaboration amongst those working to support children with disabilities, conversations regarding a child’s educational needs may involve legal language, testing data, and varied opinions. It can sometimes feel like the child is being lost in the discussion.

When navigating discussions about a child’s right to a free appropraite public education, it can be helpful to keep the following in mind:

Every child who has a disability that impacts their learning has the right to a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) under the I.D.E.A.
The right to a FAPE has a complex legal history.
The Supreme Court has found that a public school district provides a child with a FAPE when it provides the child with a special education program that is “reasonably calculated to enable [the] child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” The program must be “appropriately ambitious” given the child’s unique learning needs, and provide the child with the opportunity to “meet challenging objectives.”
The Supreme Court has also said that a FAPE requires a child’s special education program to provide more than a small amount of educational benefit, but does not give the child a right to an education that “maximizes” their potential.
A public school district may also violate a child’s right to a FAPE if it fails to follow certain procedures and timelines.

Whether or not a child is receiving a free appropriate public education can be a difficult question to answer. Although the most recent interpretation of FAPE provides a bit more guidance, it can still be challenging to apply the FAPE standard in practice.

This is why it is so important that those working to support children with disabilities understand what a FAPE does and does not guarantee under special education law. Working closely with healthcare providers and specialists can be incredibly powerful, as these experts rely on evidence-based testing to try to understand what a child needs in order to make progress.

Understanding a child’s unique learning needs, and designing a special education program that will support those needs, requires close collaboration amongst families, educators, experts, and in some cases advocates. This collaboration is crucial to ensuring that a child receives the services that they need and are legally entitled to, as efficiently as possible.

As always, thank you for your commitment to special education rights and for supporting the education of a child with a disability. This is truly life-changing work, and can impact a child’s academic and social-emotional development. Whether you are a parent, educator, healthcare provider, or advocate thank you for all that you have done, and for all that you continue to do every day.

All the very best,

Ashley