Endrew F. – Celebrating the 2017 unanimous, pro-child Supreme Court decision
(March 22, 2017 >> March 22, 2025)
Publication date: March 22, 2025
Key dates
1975: Federal law enacted, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
- IDEA provides eligible students with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) through an individualized education program (IEP).
- The IDEA introduced the term “special education” which means specially designed instruction…to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability. 20 U.S. Code § 1401 (29)
1982: U.S. Supreme Court defined the term FAPE in the Rowley case and referenced an education that is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit.”
- The Rowley decision used language like “basic floor” and “some progress” which was interpreted as setting a legal standard that meant IEPs were to be designed to provide a bare minimum of services that afforded “some educational benefit” (also referred to as the “de minimis” standard).
1998: The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) formed.
- COPAA is an independent national American association of parents of children with disabilities, attorneys, advocates, and related professionals who protect the legal and civil rights of students with disabilities and their families. Some of the most impactful work of COPAA has been filing Amicus Briefs for key cases. COPAA filed an Amicus Brief for the Endrew F. case.
Because such strong deference (consideration) is given to school districts in any dispute resolution process and the burden of proof in most states falls to the party bringing forward the complaint, most often parents, making it difficult to prevail.
For more than 35 years following Rawley, attorneys and advocates struggled to have a definitive standard when trying to prove IEPs were not beneficial enough for some students with disabilities.
2017: Landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded and partially redefined FAPE.
- The court rejected the ‘minimum educational benefit’ standard applied since Rawley and clarified that IEPs must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” This means the benefit must be meaningful and not simply minimal or trivial.
Case background
The Endrew F. case involved an autistic child whose parents sought tuition reimbursement after withdrawing him from school, arguing his IEP was inadequate.
Supreme Court ruling
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the IEP must be designed to enable the child to make progress that is appropriate in their circumstances.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote,
“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.’”
“The IDEA demands more. It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. Re-1
Moving toward a higher standard in special education
Endrew F. resulted in a standard that is markedly more demanding than minimum.
The “reasonably calculated” qualification reflects a recognition that crafting an appropriate program of education requires a prospective judgement by school officials…this fact intensive exercise will be more informed not only by the expertise of school officials but also input of the child’s parents or guardians.”
Wrightslaw: Endrew F. v. Douglas County: IDEA Demands More
Schools must implement an IEP that is reasonably calculated to remediate and if appropriate, accommodate the child’s disabilities so that the child can ‘make progress in the general education curriculum,’ taking into account progress of non-disabled peers, and the child’s potential.
Wrightslaw: Endrew F. v. Douglas County – U.S. Supreme Court Issues
In addition to the importance of procedural compliance with IDEA, there was also a need to establish the expectation of a substantive standard beyond “some benefit” for the programming provided by school districts for students with IEPs. The Endrew F. unanimous supreme court decision changed that standard in a very significant way:
- The case established a substantive right to FAPE for children with disabilities under the IDEA.
- The Supreme Court determined that a school must offer an IEP that is “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances”.
- This ruling strengthened the requirement for providing special education services to students who are educated in general education classes and added the expectation for IEP teams to consider a student’s potential for growth.
Focus on FAPE. Focus on PROGRESS.
The Endrew F. decision used words like – progress and challenging. This was the first time since 1975 that those words were written into a court decision. Determining progress requires DATA which now places a higher expectation on school districts for “proof.”
Endrew F. set an expectation that a student has a right to progress in both academic and functional areas. The focus on measurable, meaningful progress puts greater emphasis on the IEP development process, highlighting the importance of IEP goals and achievement (i.e., the IEP document sets up the way to quantify progress for the student).
Progress has a starting point and an end point in an academic year’s time. IEP Teams must create goals with clear baseline data to establish an accurate starting point. This requires clear, current, and comprehensive present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP) in the IEP. It is important to identify all the areas of student need in the PLAAFP so that goals and services can be aligned to make (and measure) progress.
IEP goals must be ambitious and challenging. This will help frame parent expectations and provides an opportunity for their participation and input in the IEP development process.
Because of the Endrew F. decision, there is now more focus placed on the cumulative view of progress overtime connected to educational benefit for students with disabilities receiving special education.
Focus on FAPE. Focus on the CHILD.
The Endrew F. case emphasizes that a focus on the individual child is central to the IDEA, and the adequacy of an IEP is determined by the unique circumstances of that child. The court underscored that the IEP “is not a form document” and must be developed “after careful consideration of the child’s present levels of achievement, disability, and potential for growth.”
The key components of the IEP: Present Levels > Goals > Services > Placement (Least Restrictive Environment) – are all based on the individual student needs and areas of impact. Goals need to be reasonably calculated for the individual child.
We know every child is unique and the Court recognized IEP Teams must consider how to challenge the student in meaningful ways.
Meaningful PARENT PARTICIPATION.
Parent participation has been a core principle of the IDEA since its inception. IEP meetings are intended to be ACTIVE and PARTICIPATORY, and parents are considered equal (and required) members of the IEP Team.
The Endrew F. decision confirmed the importance of meaningful parent involvement. Parents know the child best and when IEP teams are taking unique needs into consideration, the information parents provide is to be fully considered.
COGENT and RESPONSIVE explanations for IEP Team decisions
While the system continues to give significant deference to schools, the Endrew F. decision now provides stronger standing that the school must provide a rationale for decisions made in the IEP development.
Parents are entitled to a clear, logical, and convincing (i.e., cogent) explanation for the school district’s proposed actions and placements at each stage of the process.
The Court cautions that they 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 [their] circumstances.”
This is one way the burden of proof has informally been shifted to school systems.
One key advocacy point for parents to remember – a cogent and responsive explanation must always be requested.
Understanding how and when to ask:
- Request any draft documents ahead of meetings so that you have time to process and prepare.
- Request explanations at every point of the IEP development process.
- Ask what specific data supports the school district’s proposed IEP.
- Ask what thought process was used in determining how areas of need and impact have been identified.
- Where does the data demonstrate determination of goals?
- Ask why any proposed goal is appropriate for the child in a given academic year toward meeting challenging objectives and making (how much expected) progress.
- How many sources of data are being used in the decision-making process? (needs to be multiple)
- Where does the IEP document how the goals will have data gathered (how/what/how often) to determine meaningful progress?
- How is the IEP determining how much progress the individual, unique child should make in the course of an academic year?
- Ask for the cogent and responsive explanation to be DOCUMENTED (prior written notice for why accepting or rejecting parent requests).
- If the school district refuses to accept requests from parents related to programming, then parents should ask for the school district’s evidence that the program they are proposing is effective. Ask them to demonstrate it through data and results. (Endrew F. emphasized the importance of DATA.)
General Tips
>> DOCUMENT EVERYTHING!
- Write down anything asked, discussed, requested…
- Send parent notes as a follow up email with request to, “Please make these notes part of the file.”
- Review the prior written notice (PWN) and ask for revision or submit an additional letter if there are any areas of disagreement.
- Try to keep from using overly legal terms like ‘burden of proof.’ Instead, use words like:
- It’s the school district’s responsibility….
- It’s the school district’s obligation…
- How is the school district showing that their proposed plan will work?
- If you’re not sure notes are being included in the file, submit a record review request.
Conclusion
The Endrew F. decision was widely celebrated by the disability advocacy community in 2017. And still today – eight years later – advocates and attorneys continue to use its precedent to push for a higher standard in what the provision of FAPE means for students with disabilities. By understanding the key elements of the Supreme Court’s opinion, advocacy can be made stronger at every step of the IEP process to ensure that students with disabilities are receiving an education that is truly beneficial and meets their individual needs.
Endrew F. resources
About the Autism Alliance of Michigan
The Autism Alliance of Michigan (AAoM) is a 501(c)(3) organization serving as a trusted ally and partner for thousands of families across the state. AAoM’s mission is to lead efforts to raise expectations and expand opportunities for people connected to autism across their lifespan. The organization’s Education pillar drives initiatives that address systemic barriers to education, focuses on student-centered advocacy, and educates families on related topics – working towards its goal to make Michigan a top 10 state for special education outcomes. For help finding resources, providers and information contact our AAoM Navigators at 877-463-2266 (AAOM) or email at navigator@aaomi.org. More information about AAoM’s Education pillar can be found at www.autismallianceofmichigan.org/education-initiatives.
###
Are you a parent, advocate, or attorney dedicated to student-centered advocacy?
Join MiPAAC! mipaac.org/join-mipaac
