Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  580 U. S. ____ (2017) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

“special  education  and  related  services  . . .  that  will  be 
provided”  so  that  the  child  may  “advance  appropriately 
toward attaining the annual goals” and, when possible, “be 
involved  in  and  make  progress  in  the  general  education 
curriculum.”  §1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV).

somewhat  more 

Parents  and  educators  often  agree  about  what  a  child’s
IEP should contain.  But not always.  When disagreement
arises, parents may turn to dispute resolution procedures
established  by  the  IDEA.    The  parties  may  resolve  their 
differences informally, through  a  “[p]reliminary  meeting,” 
or, 
through  mediation. 
formally, 
§§1415(e),  (f )(1)(B)(i).    If  these  measures  fail  to  produce
accord,  the  parties  may  proceed  to  what  the  Act  calls  a 
“due  process  hearing”  before  a  state  or  local  educational 
agency.  §§1415(f )(1)(A), (g).  And at the conclusion of the 
administrative process, the losing party may seek redress 
in state or federal court.  §1415(i)(2)(A). 

B 
This  Court  first  addressed  the  FAPE  requirement  in 
Rowley.1   Plaintiff  Amy  Rowley  was  a  first  grader  with
impaired  hearing.  Her  school  district  offered  an  IEP 
under which Amy would receive instruction in the regular
classroom  and  spend  time  each  week  with  a  special  tutor
and a speech therapist.  The district proposed that Amy’s
classroom  teacher  speak  into  a  wireless  transmitter  and
that Amy use an FM hearing aid designed to amplify her 
teacher’s words; the district offered to supply both compo-
nents of this system.  But Amy’s  parents argued that  the 
IEP  should  go  further  and  provide  a  sign-language  inter-

—————— 

1 The requirement was initially set out in the Education of the Handi-
capped  Act,  which  was  later  amended  and  renamed  the  IDEA.    See 
Pub. L. 101–476, §901(a), 104 Stat. 1141.  For simplicity’s sake—and to 
avoid  “acronym  overload”—we  use  the  latter  title  throughout  this 
opinion.  Fry  v.  Napoleon  Community  Schools,  580  U. S.  ___,  ___,  n. 1 
(2017) (slip op., at 4, n. 1).