Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

had  just  done  exactly  that.    We  cannot  accept  the  school 
district’s reading of Rowley. 

B 
While  Rowley  declined  to  articulate  an  overarching
standard  to  evaluate  the  adequacy  of  the  education  pro-
vided  under  the  Act,  the  decision  and  the  statutory  lan-
guage point to a general approach: To meet its substantive
obligation  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. 

The  “reasonably  calculated”  qualification  reflects  a 
recognition that crafting an appropriate program of educa-
tion  requires  a  prospective  judgment  by  school  officials. 
Id., at 207.  The Act contemplates that this fact-intensive
exercise  will  be  informed  not  only  by  the  expertise  of 
school officials, but also by the input of the child’s parents
or guardians.  Id., at 208–209.  Any review of an IEP must
appreciate that the question is whether the IEP is reason-
able,  not  whether  the  court  regards  it  as  ideal.    Id.,  at 
206–207. 

The IEP must aim to enable the child to make progress.
After  all,  the  essential  function  of  an  IEP  is  to  set  out  a 
plan  for  pursuing  academic  and  functional  advancement.
See  §§1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)–(IV).    This  reflects  the  broad 
purpose  of  the  IDEA,  an  “ambitious”  piece  of  legislation
enacted “in response to Congress’ perception that a major-
ity  of  handicapped  children  in  the  United  States  ‘were
either  totally  excluded  from  schools  or  [were]  sitting  idly 
in  regular  classrooms  awaiting  the  time  when  they  were
old  enough  to  “drop  out.” ’ ”  Rowley,  458  U. S.,  at  179 
(quoting  H. R.  Rep.  No.  94–332,  p. 2  (1975)).  A  substan-
tive  standard  not  focused  on  student  progress  would  do 
little to remedy the pervasive and tragic academic stagna-
tion that prompted Congress to act.

That  the  progress  contemplated  by  the  IEP  must  be