Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf
Page Number: 18

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

Opinion of the Court 

curriculum.2 

Rowley  had  no  need  to  provide  concrete  guidance  with
respect to a child who is not fully integrated in the regular 
classroom  and  not  able  to  achieve  on  grade  level.    That 
case concerned a young girl who was progressing smoothly 
through  the  regular  curriculum.    If  that  is  not  a  reason-
able  prospect  for  a  child,  his  IEP  need  not  aim  for  grade-
level advancement.  But his educational program must be
appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances, just 
as  advancement  from  grade  to  grade  is  appropriately 
ambitious for most children in the regular classroom.  The 
goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to
meet challenging objectives.

Of  course  this  describes  a  general  standard,  not  a  for-
mula.  But whatever else can be said about it, this stand-
ard  is  markedly  more  demanding  than  the  “merely  more
than  de  minimis”  test  applied  by  the  Tenth  Circuit.    It 
cannot  be  the  case  that  the  Act  typically  aims  for  grade-
level  advancement  for  children  with  disabilities  who  can 
be  educated  in  the  regular  classroom,  but  is  satisfied
with barely more than de minimis progress for those who 
cannot. 

When  all  is  said  and  done,  a  student  offered  an  educa-
tional  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  tanta-
mount  to  “sitting  idly  . . .  awaiting  the  time  when  they
were old enough to ‘drop out.’ ”   Rowley, 458  U. S., at 179 
(some  internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    The  IDEA 
demands  more.  It  requires  an  educational  program  rea-
—————— 

2 This  guidance  should  not  be  interpreted  as  an  inflexible  rule.  We 
declined  to  hold  in  Rowley,  and  do  not  hold  today,  that  “every  handi-
capped child who is advancing from grade to grade . . . is automatically
receiving a [FAPE].”  Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School 
Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 203, n. 25 (1982).