Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

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

Syllabus 

drew’s parents removed him from public school and enrolled him in a
specialized  private  school,  where  he  made  significant  progress.
School district representatives later presented Endrew’s parents with
a new fifth grade IEP, but they considered it no more adequate than
the  original  plan.  They  then  sought  reimbursement  for  Endrew’s 
private school tuition by filing a complaint under the IDEA with the 
Colorado  Department  of  Education.    Their  claim  was  denied,  and  a 
Federal District Court affirmed that determination.  The Tenth Cir-
cuit also affirmed.  That court interpreted Rowley to establish a rule 
that a child’s IEP is adequate as long as it is calculated to confer an
“ educational benefit [that is] merely . . . more than de minimis,” 798 
F. 3d  1329,  1338  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted),  and  concluded 
that  Endrew’s  IEP  had  been  “ reasonably  calculated  to  enable  [him]
to make some progress, ” id., at 1342 (internal quotation marks omit-
ted).  The court accordingly held that Endrew had received a FAPE.   

Held: 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.  Pp. 9–16.

(a) Rowley  and  the  language  of  the  IDEA  point  to  the  approach
adopted  here.    The  “reasonably  calculated”  qualification  reflects  a
recognition  that  crafting  an  appropriate  program  of  education  re-
quires  a  prospective  judgment  by  school  officials,  informed  by  their 
own expertise and the views of a child’s parents or guardians; any re-
view of an IEP must appreciate that the question is whether the IEP
is reasonable, not whether the court regards it as ideal.  An IEP must 
aim to enable the child to make progress; the essential function of an 
IEP  is  to  set  out  a  plan  for  pursuing  academic  and  functional  ad-
vancement.  And  the  degree  of  progress  contemplated  by  the  IEP
must  be  appropriate  in  light  of  the  child’s  circumstances,  which 
should come as no surprise.  This reflects the focus on the particular
child that is at the core of the IDEA, and the directive that States of-
fer  instruction  “specially  designed”  to  meet  a  child’s  “unique  needs” 
through  an  “[i]ndividualized  education  program.”    §§1401(29),  (14) 
(emphasis added). 

Rowley  sheds  light  on  what  appropriate  progress  will  look  like  in 
many cases: For a child fully integrated in the regular classroom, an
IEP typically should be “reasonably calculated to enable the child to 
achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade.”  458 U. S., 
at  204.    This  guidance  is  grounded  in  the  statutory  definition  of  a 
FAPE.  One  component  of  a  FAPE  is  “special  education,”  defined  as 
“specially designed instruction . . . to meet the unique needs of a child
with a disability.”  §§1401(9), (29).  In determining what it means to
“meet the unique needs” of a child with a disability, the provisions of 
the  IDEA  governing  the  IEP  development  process  provide  guidance.