Supreme Court decides special education case

The U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District that public school districts must offer students with disabilities an individual education plan (IEP) “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”

The court rejected a 10th Circuit’s holding that an IEP must merely confer “some educational benefit” that is “more than de minimis.”

This ruling came down while Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Gorsuch was the author of a 2008 opinion, which was the basis for the 10th Circuit’s opinion in Endrew F.

As required by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a student with a disability receives an IEP, developed with parents and educators, which is intended to provide that student with a “free and appropriate public education” (FAPE).

Counties and Public Education

• K–12 public education is county-run in a number of states including Maryland, Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina.
• In total, counties spent $76.8 billion on elementary and secondary education in 2012.
• Counties also spent $5.7 billion on the construction of educational facilities in 2012.

Source: NACo “County Explorer”

Endrew F. is autistic. When he was in fourth grade, his parents removed him from Douglas County, Colo. School District because they thought he wasn’t making adequate progress. The IDEA law allows parents to enroll their child with a disability in a private school and receive reimbursement from the public school if the public school was unable to provide the child an FAPE. The district argued it was able to provide Endrew F. an FAPE and refused to reimburse his parents for the cost of private school tuition.

The Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) was the first case where the Supreme Court defined FAPE. In that case, the court failed to articulate an “overarching standard,” but did say that an IEP must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to receive educational benefits.” For a child receiving instruction in the regular classroom an IEP must be “reasonably calculated to enable the child” to advance from grade to grade.

In Endrew F., the court stated that if “progressing smoothly through the regular curriculum” isn’t “a reasonable prospect for a child, his IEP need not aim for grade level advancement, but his educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular classroom.

“The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives.”

The court admitted its new standard is “general,” but was also clear that it is “markedly more demanding than the 10th Circuit’s standard.”

Four federal circuit courts of appeals apply a standard similar to the 10th Circuit (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming):  and school districts in those states will need to accommodate the new ruling. They are: 1st (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island); 4th (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia); 7th (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin); and 8th (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska).

NACo is a founder, a funder and a board member of the State and Local Legal Center, headquartered in Washington, D.C. The center extends NACo’s advocacy on behalf of counties to the highest court in the land.