Landmark special education case decided by U.S. Supreme Court
Published: March 22, 2017
The Supreme Court ruled earlier today that school districts must do more than provide a “merely more than de minimis” education program to a student with a disability.
The plaintiff-appellant student in the case, Endrew F., was diagnosed with autism at two years old and ADHD at three. He attended Douglas County schools in Colorado from preschool through fourth grade, and received special-education services, including individualized education plans (IEPs) tailored to meet his needs. At the conclusion of fourth grade, Endrew’s parents decided he was not making meaningful progress, rejected the IEP proposed by the District for fifth grade, and enrolled him in a private school that specializes in educating autistic children. Endrew’s parents then turned to the District for reimbursement of his private-school tuition and related expenses, arguing that Endrew was not provided a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE), as required under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit had ruled earlier in this case that a “free appropriate public education” requires an “educational benefit [that is] merely . . . more than de minimis,” and that because Endrew F. had received “some education benefit” from his school district, he had been provided a “free appropriate public education” under the IDEA.
The Supreme Court overturned the Tenth Circuit Court’s ruling today, holding that an IEP “must be appropriately ambitious” in order “to meet the substantive obligations 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.” Chief Justice John Roberts writing for a unanimous court, declared that the standard for a free appropriate public education “is more demanding than the “merely more than de minimis” test applied by the Tenth Circuit. It cannot be right that the IDEA generally contemplates grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who are fully integrated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for children who are not.”
The Supreme Court had previously declined to establish any one test for determining the adequacy of education benefits required under the IDEA, and as a result appellate courts have adopted different standards, with some states requiring “some” educational benefit while others require a “meaningful” educational benefit. The Supreme Court’s ruling today did not set a bright line rule regarding what level of education a student with a disability must receive in order to receive FAPE, but it set the floor for such a standard above the Tenth Circuit’s “merely more than de minimis” standard, and reinforced the general approach to providing a free appropriate public education under the IDEA – that “a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” The Court noted it is describing a “general standard, not a formula,” but that “whatever else can be said about it, this standard is markedly more demanding that the “merely more than de minimis” test applied by the Tenth Circuit.”
California schools have never aimed to provide only merely more than a de minimis education program to students, but courts may review IEPs and whether schools are providing a “free appropriate public education” to students under a higher standard than before the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court’s decision could impact approximately 6.5 million students with disabilities in the United States, and the extent of the impact on California students and school districts remains to be seen.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is available here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.