A New Standard Set for Public Education

FAST FACTS

● Endrew F. vs Douglas County School District

○ Unanimous decision made by the Supreme Court March 22, 2017
​ ppropriately ambitious
○ Shift from​ de minimis progress​ to a
○ Modifies the educational benefit standard established in the IDEA
■ Shift from “some educational benefit standard” to “meaningful
educational benefit”

What does this mean for special education?

● Increase educational expectations
● Full integration to allow for progress in the general education curriculum
Parents must be active participants in the IEP meeting
Goals must be “appropriately ambitious”
● Why is it ambitious? - unique to each child
● What was the team’s reasoning?
In order for a district to meet its FAPE obligation under the IDEA
“Offer an IEP that is reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress
appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances”
Progress must be monitored - what does this mean
In the event of a legal challenge, the IEP must document the decision making process

Be Mindful Of..
● Creating new goals - not using the same goals from last year
● Students need to show significant improvement/progress
● The IEP team requires collaborations from all members
● If progress monitoring indicates that the IEP goal will not be met, the team needs to
reconvene to discuss

To meet the FAPE obligation as outlined in the IDEA , a school district must “Offer an IEP that
is reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s
circumstances”
Legal Issues Case Review- assignment 1b
Whitney Brauchla, Anita Woodrow, Jennifer Blanchette

Legal Issue:​ ​Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist.

Endrew is a student on the Autism Spectrum who attended public school in Colorado.
Endrew made slow, but some, progress in the public school system. After his fourth
grade year, his parents felt like he was no longer making adequate progress and were
not pleased with the IEP proposed by his school team for his 5th grade year. Most of
the goals and objectives on the proposed IEP were the same as his 4th grade year, as
he had not previously met them. Because Endrew’s parents were disappointed with the
lack of progress, they enrolled him in a private school specifically for students with
Autism. Endrew made what they believed was significant progress with what the family
saw as a more “individualized” education plan in just six months. The public school
district proposed a second 5th grade IEP; however, the family again did not feel as
though adequate changes had been made to the plan and requested the district pay for
his private school tuition (approximately 70,000/year). When the district denied tuition
reimbursement, the family first brought the case to the Federal District Court and then to
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which sided with the district. The case was
then brought to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Rights that came into question in the suit include: Free and Appropriate Education
(FAPE) for all individuals, as well as the Individuals With Disabilities Act (IDEA).

In essence, the biggest question the case boiled down to, is: what level of progress
must school districts be held to ensuring for students with disabilities? Is it OK for
children with disabilities to simply demonstrate that their FAPE results in “some”
improvement, or “merely more than de minimis’”, or, must districts ensure students with
disabilities are given substantially equal opportunities and pushed to demonstrate
significant progress as their general education peers?

Court Outcome:

The U.S. Supreme Court, under the leadership of John G. Roberts, voted unanimously
in favor of Endrew. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that a child’s “educational program must
be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances” and that “every child should
have the chance to meet challenging objectives.” When citing previous cases that also
focused on FAPE and IDEA, Roberts states “when all is said and done, a student
offered an educational program providing “merely more than de minimis” progress from
year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all. For children
with disabilities, receiving instruction that aims so low would be tantamount to “sitting
idly . . . awaiting the time when they were old enough to ‘drop out.’”

Personal Analysis:

One difficult piece from this case is that the U.S. Supreme court did not elaborate, nor
give any structure, as to what “appropriate progress” looks like. While it is clear this
wouldn’t be possible given each child’s unique strengths and challenges, it makes it
difficult as educators, in collaboration with families, to come to common ground on
expectations; thus making collaboration and communication essential for a functioning
team and support for the student. The ambiguity in semantics, while understandably
unavoidable, allows for the potential of an influx of cases where families and districts
are at odds regarding “what progress looks like”.

In regard to the case itself, we stand in agreement with the court's ruling. From reading
the suit, court opinion, and doing additional online research of the case, little appeared
to be done by the district to support Endrew in making adequate progress on his IEP
goals and objectives. The private school that Endrew transferred to appears to have
made progress, and quickly at that. They were able to put in place behavioral
interventions that not only decreased undesirable behaviors, but that also allowed for an
increase in academic success. Nothing points to the interventions that the private
school put in place as unattainable for the public school district to have also provided.
This is made further apparent by the fact that the school district proposed a second 5th
grade IEP, following progress made at the private school, that still did not appear to be
uniquely tailored to Endrew and his present level of performance.

Key Learning:

This case focused heavily on the previous rulings of the court in the ​Board of Ed. of
Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley when looking at the
issue of FAPE. While the U.S. Supreme Court did not overturn the previous Rowley
ruling, it appears as though they may have ruled differently than the previous Courts.

Endrew’s case is a reminder that each Individualized Education Plan needs to be

exactly that, tailored and individualized to the student's’ unique needs. This making it
clear that districts must avoid “catch all” language such as “we don’t offer that”, which
implies there is a standard way of providing what should be specialized services.
This case is also a good reminder of the importance of regular and accurate progress
reporting. Previous progress should be clearly reflected in the present levels of
performance as well as in the goals and objectives on the IEP. If adequate progress is
not being demonstrated, this should signal the team (parents and educators) to come
together and develop a new approach for achieving progress.
 Endrew F. v. Douglas County School 
District (2017) Recommendations for 
Administrators and Implications for 
Developing IEPs 
Presenters: Julie J. Weatherly, Esq. Mitchell L. Yell, 
Ph.D. 
Moderator: Laurie VanderPloeg Outline of 
Webinar 
•Definition of FAPE in the IDEA 
•Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) 
•Split in the Circuits 
•Endrew v. Douglas County School District (2017) 
•5 Major Takeaways from Endrew 
•5 Recommendations for Administrators and 
Implications for Developing IEPs 
1 6/1/2017 
1 
 
 What is a Free Appropriate Public 
Education (FAPE)? 
• Special education & related services that are: 
• Provided at public expense 
• Meet the standards of the SEA 
• Includes preschool, elementary, or secondary education 
• Are provided in conformity with the individualized 
education program (IEP) Board of Education v. Rowley, 
1982 
• 458 U.S. 176 (1982) 
6/1/2017 
2 
 
Board of Education v. Rowley, 1982 
“We therefore conclude that the ‘basic floor of 
opportunity’ consists of access to specialized 
instruction and related services which are 
individually designed to provide educational 
benefit to the handicapped child.” The Rowley 
Two-Part Test 1. Has the state complied with 
the procedures set forth in the law? 2. Is the 
resulting IEP reasonably calculated to enable the 
student to receive educational benefit? 
6/1/2017 
3 
 
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District 
• Facts of the Case 
• Due Process Hearing 
• Federal District Court 
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit 
Lower Lower Standard 
Standard 
Confused! 
Higher Lower Standard 
Standard 
Higher Standard* FAPE Tests 
Lower Standard 
Lower Standard 
Lower Standard 

6/1/2017 
4 
 
Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court 
The Tenth Circuit’s Standard “The educational 
benefit mandated by the IDEA must merely be 
more than de minimis” 
•On December 22, 2015 the parents appealed to the U.S. 
Supreme Court 
•Question Presented: What is the level of educational benefit 
school districts must confer on children with disabilities to 
provide them with the free appropriate public education 
guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? 
10 6/1/2017 
5 
 
Supreme Court Ruling: March 22, 2017 
Oral Arguments: January 11, 2017 
11 In Rowley, “we declined...to endorse any one standard for 
determining when (students with disabilities) are receiving sufficient 
educational benefit to satisfy the requirements of the Act.” 
“That more difficult problem is before us today.” 
12 6/1/2017 
6 
 
•The High Court rejected the “merely more than de minimis” 
standard, vacating the decision and remanding the case back 
to the 10th Circuit to apply the new standard. 
•“To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a 
school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a 
child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s 
circumstances.’ Supreme Court Ruling: March 22, 2017 
Endrew Takeaway #1 

The Supreme Court rejected the “de 

minimis” or “trivial” educational 
benefit standard 
13 6/1/2017 
7 
 
“A student offered an educational program providing 
'merely more than de minimis' progress from year to year 
can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all." 
“A substantive standard not focused on student progress 
would do little to remedy the pervasive and tragic academic 
stagnation that prompted Congress to act.... The IDEA 
demands more.” 
“But whatever else can be said about it, this standard is 
markedly more demanding than the ‘merely more than de 
minimis’ test applied by the Tenth Circuit.” 
“A child’s education program must be appropriately 
ambitious in light of his circumstances....” “Every child 
should have the chance to meet challenging objectives.” 
6/1/2017 
8 
 
 Maximization of Benefit Justice Roberts 
noted that the Rowley Court rejected a 
FAPE standard that required students 
with disabilities to achieve academic 
success that was substantially equal to the 
opportunity afforded children without 
disabilities Endrew Takeaway #2 
The Supreme Court rejected the 
maximizing standard the Court 
previously rejected in Rowley 
6/1/2017 
9 
 
 Maximization of Benefit “Mindful that 
Congress (despite several intervening 
amendments to the IDEA) has not materially 
changed the statutory definition of a FAPE 
since Rowley was decided, we decline to 
interpret the FAPE provision in a manner so 
plainly at odds with the Court’s analysis in 
that case.” (Endrew, p. 15) 
Maximization of Benefit The requirement that 
States provide "equal" educational opportunities 
would thus seem to present an entirely unworkable 
standard requiring impossible measurements and 
comparisons.... To require the furnishing of every 
special service necessary to maximize each 
handicapped child's potential is, we think, further 
than Congress intended to go. (Rowley, p. 186) 
6/1/2017 
10 
 
The Rowley/Endrew Test 
1. In the development of an IEP, has the school 
agency complied with the procedures set forth in the 
IDEA? 2. Is the IEP developed through the IDEA’s 
procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child 
to make progress in light of his or her circumstances? 
Endrew Takeaway #3 

The Endrew F. decision did not 

replace or overturn the Rowley 
decision; rather, it clarified its 
FAPE standard 
6/1/2017 
11 
 
The Role of the Courts “A standard not a 
formula” “We will not attempt to elaborate on 
what appropriate progress will look like from 
case to case.... The adequacy of a given IEP 
turns on the unique circumstances of the 
(student) for whom it was created.” 
Endrew Takeaway #4 The full 
implications of the Endrew decision 
will not become clear until hearing 
officers and judges apply the Endrew 
standard to the facts presented in 
future FAPE litigation 
6/1/2017 
12 
 
The Role of the Courts "A reviewing court 
may fairly expect those authorities to be able 
to offer a cogent and responsive explanation 
for their decisions that shows the IEP is 
reasonably calculated to enable the child to 
make progress appropriate in light of his 
circumstances.” 
The Role of the Courts “any review of an 
IEP must appreciate that the question is 
whether the IEP is reasonable, not whether 
the court regards it as ideal.” 
6/1/2017 
13 
 
Endrew on the IEP 
• “An IEP is not a form document.” 
• "The IEP must aim to enable the child to make 
progress.” 
• It is through the IEP that a free appropriate 
public education is tailored to the unique needs of 
the (student).” Endrew Takeaway #5 
The Endrew decision provides 
guidance to special education 
administrators and teachers in 
developing IEPs that meet the 
Endrew standard. 
6/1/2017 
14 
 
Endrew on the Importance of Parental 
Participation 
• An IEP must be drafted in compliance with a detailed set of procedures 
that “emphasize collaboration among parents and educators and require 
careful consideration of the child’s individual circumstances” 
• “this fact-intensive exercise (IEP development) will be informed not only 
by the expertise of school officials, but also by the input of the child’s parents” 
• “judicial deference to school authorities will depend on their having 
provided parents in the IEP process with the opportunity to “fully air their ... 
opinion on the requisite degree of progress” 
30 

Recommendation #1 Continue to 

train IEP teams to avoid procedural 
violations in the development of the IEP 
that could, in and of themselves, 
constitute a denial of FAPE. 
6/1/2017 
15 
 
Recommendation #2 When developing 
the content of a student’s IEP and 
subsequently reviewing and revising it, 
be sure that the present levels of 
performance and annual goals are based 
upon evaluations and other relevant 
data that are current. 
Recommendation  #3  Ensure  that 
annual  IEP  goals  are  appropriate  and 
measurable. 
6/1/2017 
16 
 
Recommendation #4 Continuously 
monitor and measure a child’s progress 
on annual goals (and 
objectives/benchmarks, if applicable) 
and maintain specific data to 
demonstrate that progress has been 
made. 
Recommendation #5 When 
progress report and other data do not 
reflect that an annual goal will be met, 
reconvene the IEP team to determine 
why!