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.