Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

16  ENDREW F. v. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. RE–1 

Opinion of the Court 

circumstances of the child for whom it was created.  This 
absence of a bright-line rule, however, should not be mis-
taken  for  “an  invitation  to  the  courts  to  substitute  their 
own  notions  of  sound  educational  policy  for  those  of  the 
school authorities which they review.”  Rowley, 458 U. S., 
at 206. 

At the same time, deference is based on the application 
of expertise and the exercise of judgment by school author-
ities.  The  Act  vests  these  officials  with  responsibility  for 
decisions  of  critical  importance  to  the  life  of  a  disabled 
child.  The  nature  of  the  IEP  process,  from  the  initial 
consultation  through  state  administrative  proceedings,
ensures that parents and school representatives will fully 
air  their  respective  opinions  on  the  degree  of  progress  a 
child’s IEP should pursue.  See §§1414, 1415; id., at 208– 
209.  By the time any dispute reaches court, school author-
ities  will  have  had  a  complete  opportunity  to  bring  their 
expertise and judgment to bear on areas of disagreement. 
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 judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Tenth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for 
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.