Source: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/qa-endrew-f-v-douglas-county-school-district-case-qa/
Timestamp: 2019-10-22 16:58:26
Document Index: 425337717

Matched Legal Cases: ['§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§1414', '§300', '§300']

Q&A: Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Case Q&A (Dec. 7, 2017) - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Q&A: Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Case Q&A (Dec. 7, 2017)
Topic Areas: Free Appropriate Public Education
On December 7, 2017, OSERS released a Question-and-Answer (Q-&-A) document addressing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1, which clarified the scope of the free appropriate public education (FAPE) requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
The Court held that "to meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer [a child] an [individualized education program] IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances."
This Q-&-A document provides an overview of the facts and issue in the case, a discussion of the IDEA FAPE requirements and includes questions addressing implementation considerations.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1 Q&A
UNITED STATES	DEPARTMENT OF	EDUCATION	WASHINGTON,	DC	20202	December 7, 2017	Questions and	Answers	(Q&A) on U. S. Supreme	Court Case Decision	Endrew F. v. Douglas County	School District	Re	-1 On March	22, 2017 the	U.S. Supreme	Court	(sometimes	referred	to as Court) issued	a unanimous	opinion in Endrew	F. v. Douglas County School	District	Re	-1, 137 S. Ct. 988	. In that	case,	the	Court interpreted	the	scope	of the	free	appropriate	public	education	(FAPE)	requirements	in the	Individuals	with Disabilities	Education	Act (IDEA).	The	Court	overturned	the	Tenth	Circuit’s	decision	that Endrew,	a child with autism, was	only	entitled	to an	educational	program	that	was	calculated	to provide	“merely	more	than	de	minim	is” educational	benefit.	In rejecting	the	Tenth	Circuit’s	reasoning,	the Supreme	Court determined that, “[t]o meet	its substantive	obligation	under	the IDEA,	a school	must offer	an	IEP	[individualized	education	program]	that is	reasonably	calculated	to enable	a child	to make progress	appropriate	in light	of the	child’s	circumstances.”	The	Court additionally	emphasized the requirement	that	“every	child	should	have the chance	to meet	challenging	objectives.”	The	Endrew	F. decision is important	because	it informs our efforts	to improve a	cademic	outcomes	for	children	with disabilities.	To	this end,	the	U.S. Department	of Education	(Department)	is providing	parents	and other stakeholders	information	on the	issues	addressed	in Endrew	F. and	the impact of the	Court’s	decision on the	implementation	of the	IDEA.	Because	the decision	in Endrew	F. clarified the	scope	of the	IDEA’s	FAPE	requirements,	the Department’s	Office of Special	Education and	Rehabilitative Services	(OSERS)	is interested	in receiving	comments	from	families,	teachers,	administrators,	and	other	stakeholders	to assist	us in	identifying	implementation questions	and	best	practices.	If you	are	interested in commenting	on	this document	or have additional questions,	please send	them	to OSERS by	email	at Endrew	F@ed.	gov	. www.ed.gov	The	Department	of Education’s mission	is to promote	student	achievement	and	preparedness for	global	competiveness by fostering	educational	excellence and	ensuring	equal	access. Q&A	on U.	S. Supreme	Court	Case	Decision	Endrew	F. v. Douglas	County	School	District Re	-1 2 TABLE	OF	CONTENTS	OVERVIEW	................................	................................	................................	................................	...............................	3 1. What	were	the	facts	surrounding	the	Endrew	F. decision?	................................	...............................	3 2. What	is the	crucial	issue	that	was	addressed	in the	Endrew	F. decision?	................................	.........	3 3. What	was	the Supreme	Court’s	final	decision	in Endrew	F.?................................	...........................	3 CLARIFICATION OF IDEA’s FAPE	REQUI	REME	NT ................................	................................	..............	4 4. How is FAPE	defined	in the	IDEA?	................................	................................	................................	......	4 5. Prior to	En	drew F., what did the C	ourt say	abo	ut the subs	tantive st	and	ard f	or FAPE? ....................	4 6. What	does	“de minim	is” mean	and	why	did the	Tenth Circuit	Court	apply	the	“de	minim	is”	standard	in the	Endrew	F. case?	................................	................................	................................	........	4 7. How did Endrew	F. clarify	the standard	for	determining	FAPE	and educational	benefit?	................	5 8. Does	the	standard	in Endrew	F. apply	prospectively	to IDEA	cases?	................................	..............	5 9. Does	the	standard	in Endrew	F. only	apply	to situations	similar	to the	facts	presented	in Endrew	F.? ................................	................................	................................	................................	................................	..............	5 CON	SIDERATION	S FOR IMPL	EME	NTATION ................................	................................	........................	5 10.	What	does	“reasonably	calculated”	mean?	................................	................................	.......................	5 11.	What	does	“progress	appropriate	in light	of the	child’s	circumstances”	mean?	...............................	6 12.	How can an IEP	Team ensure	that	every	child	has	the	chance	to meet	challenging	objectives?	.......	6 13.	How can IEP	Teams	determine	if IEP	annual	goals	are	appropriately	ambitious?	............................	7 14.	How can IEP	Teams	implement	the	Endrew	F. standard	for	children	with	the most significant	cognitive	disabilities?	................................	................................	................................	.......................	7 15.	What	actions	should	IEP	Teams	take	if a	child	is not	making	progress	at the	level	the	IEP Team expect	ed?	................................	................................	................................	.........................	7 16.	Must	IEPs	address	the	use	of positive	behavioral	interventions	and supports?	................................	8 17.	How does the	Endrew	F. decision	impact	placement	decisions?	................................	......................	8 18.	Is there anything	IEP	Teams	should	do	differently	as a	result	of the	Endrew	F. decision?	...............	9 19.	Is there anything	SEAs	should	do	differently	as a	result	of the	Endrew	F. decision	? .......................	9 20.	Has	the	Endrew	F. decision	affected	parents’	due	process	rights	under	the IDEA?	...........................	9 Q&A	on U.	S. Supreme	Court	Case	Decision	Endrew	F. v. Douglas	County	School	District Re	-1 3 QUESTIONS	AND	ANSWERS	OVERVIEW	1. What	were	the facts surrounding	the	Endrew	F. decision?	Endrew,	a child	with autism, attended	public	school from	kindergarten	through	fourth grade.	In April	of 2010,	Endrew’s	parents	rejected	the	5th grade	individualized education	program	(IEP)	proposed	by	the	Douglas	County	School	District. Endrew’s	parents	believed the proposed	IEP	was	basically	the same	as the previous	IEPs	under	which	their	child’s	academic	and	functional	progress	had stalled	. Endrew’s	parents	subsequently	withdrew him from	public school	and	placed	him in a private school that	specialized	in the	education	of children	with autism. Endrew’s	behavior in the	private	school setting improved	significantly;	his academic	goals	were	stre	ngthened	and	he	thrived. This case	arose	because	Endrew’s	parents	were unable	to obtain	tuition reimbursement	for the cost	of the private	school placement.	Endrew’s	parents	sought	reimbursement	for the	private	school	tuition payments	at a due	process	hearing,	and	subsequently	sought	judicial	review	of the hearing	decision	in the	U.S. District	Court for	the District	of Colorado	after	the	hearing	officer	did not grant	the	relief	they	were	seeking.	The	District	Court	affirmed	the hearing	officer’s	decision, and	they	appealed	to the	U.S.	Court of	Appeals	for	the	Tenth	Circuit.	In these	proceedings,	Endrew’s	parents	argued	that the	IEP	proposed by	the public school	was	mostly	unchanged	from	his	previous	IEPs,	under which	he	made	“minim	al progress.”	The	Tenth	Circuit	rejected	the	parents’	arguments	and	concluded	that Endrew	had	received	FAPE	through	the	district’s	IEPs	because	they	were	calculated	to provide educational	benefit that	is merely	more	than	de	minim	is (i.e.,	more than trivial	or minor	educational	benefit). Endrew’s	parents	then	appealed the case to the	U.S. Supreme	Court.	The	Court overturned	the	Tenth	Circuit’s	decision.	2. What	is the	crucial	issue	that was addressed	in the	Endrew F. decision?	Endrew	F. clarified	the substantive	standard	for determining	whether a	child’s	IEP	– the	centerpiece of each	child’s	entitlement	to FAPE	under the IDEA	– is sufficient	to confer	educational	benefit on a	child	with a disability.	3. What	was the Supreme	Court’s	final decision	in Endrew F	.? The	Court held	that	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.	In clarifying	the standard, the	Court	rejected	the	“me	rely	more	than	de	minim	is” (i.e.	more	than trivial) standard applied	by	the	Tenth	Circuit.	In determining	the scope of FAPE,	the Court reinforced	the requirement	that “every	child should have the chance to meet	challenging	objectives.”	1 1 137	S.Ct.	at 1000. Q&A	on U.	S. Supreme	Court	Case	Decision	Endrew	F. v. Douglas	County	School	District Re	-1 4 CLARIFICATION	OF	IDEA’s	FAPE	REQUIREMENT	4. How	is FAPE	defined in	the IDEA?	Under the	IDEA,	FAPE	is a statutory	term.	2 It is defined	to include	special	education	and	related	services	that	(1)	are	provided at public expense,	under	public supervision and	direction,	and	without charge;	(2)	meet	the	standards	of the State educational	agency	(SEA),	including	IDEA	Part	B requirements;	(3)	include	an	appropriate	preschool,	elementary	school, or secondary	school	education	in the	State	involved;	and	(4)	are	provided in conformity	with an	IEP	that meets	the requirements	of 34 CFR	§§300.320	through	300.324.	Further,	each	child	with a	disability	is entitled	to receive	FAPE	in the least restrictive	environment	(LRE).	3 5. Prior to Endrew F., what did	the Cou	rt say about the	substantive	stan	dard for	FAPE? Prior	to End	rew F., cour	ts r	elied on the l	andma	rk ca	se Boa	rd of Ed	ucation of H	endri	ck-Hudson Central	School	District	v. Rowley	. 458 U.S. 176 (1982)	(“Rowley	”).	In Rowley	, the Court held	that	Amy	Rowley,	a child	with a disability	involved in the	case,	would receive FAPE	if her	IEP	was	“reasonably	calculated to enable	the	child	to achieve	educational	benefits.”	In Rowley	, the	Court	did not establish	any	one	test for	determining	educational	benefit provided to all	children	covered	by	the	IDEA.	The	Court did, however,	discuss what	appropriate	progress	would	be	for	a child	with a disability	who was	performing above	average	in the	general	education	classroom	with the	supports included	in her	IEP.	In Rowley,	the	Court emphasized	that	an	IEP	had	to be	reasonably	calculated	to enable	the	child	to achieve passing	marks and	advance from	grade to grade.	6. What	does	“de	minim	is” mean	and why	did	the	Tenth	Circuit	Court	apply the	“de	minim	is” standard in the Endrew F. case?	“De	minim	is” is a	Latin	term	which means	too trivial or	minor to consider.	Because	the	Supreme	Court in Rowley did not establish	one	particular	test	for	educational	benefit, lower	courts	(Federal	District	Courts and	Circuit	Courts) disagreed	over how to determine	educational	benefit	and ap	pli	ed di	fferent su	bstantive	stand	ards.	For example, prior	to End	rew F., six	U.S.	Court of Appeals	Circuit	Courts applied a	“merely	more	than	de	minim	is” standard	when	considering	educational	benefit. One of	those courts	was	the	U.S. Court of	Appeals	for the	Tenth	Circuit,	where	Endrew	and	his parents	lived.	Therefore,	initially	the	court	applied	the “de minim	is” standard	to Endrew’s	case.	This meant	that	in order to meet	its FAPE	obligations, the school	district	only	had	to show	that the child’s	IEP	was designed	to provide	a child	with a disability	more	than trivial	or minor educational	benefit.	2 20	U.S.C.	1401(9)	and	34 CFR	§300.17.	3 20	U.S.C.	1412(a)(5)	and	34	CFR	§§300.114	-300.117 Q&A	on U.	S. Supreme	Court	Case	Decision	Endrew	F. v. Douglas	County	School	District Re	-1 4 137	S.Ct.	at 1000.	5 137	S.Ct.	at 999.	5 7. How	did	Endrew	F. clarify the	standard	for	determining	FAPE	and educational	benefit?	With	the decision	in Endrew,	F., the Court clarified	that for all	students, including	those	performing	at grade level	and	those	unable	to perform at grade level,	a school must offer	an	IEP	that is “reasonably	calculated	to enable	a child	to make progress	appropriate	in light	of the	child’s	circumstances.”	This standard	is different	from, and	more	demanding	than, the	“merely	more	than	de	minim	is” test applied	by	the	Tenth	Circuit.	As the	Court stated, “[t]he	goals	may	differ,	but every	child	should have the chance to meet	challenging	objectives.”	4 8. Does	the standard	in	Endrew	F. apply	prospectively	to IDEA	cases?	Yes.	The Supreme Court	decisively	rejected the “merely	more	than de	minim	is” standard used	by	the	Tenth	and	other	Circuits; therefore that standard is no longer	considered	good	law.	The	Court	explained, “[a]	student offered	an	educational	program	providing	merely	more	than	de	minim	is progress	from	year	to year	can	hardly	be	said to have	been offered	an	education at all…The	IDEA	demands more.”	Now,	as a result	of Endrew	F., each	child’s	educational program	must be	appropriately	ambitious	in light	of his or her	circumstances,	and	every	child should have the	chance to meet	challenging	objectives.	9. Does	the standard	in	Endrew	F. only apply	to situations	similar	to the	facts	presented	in Endrew F.? No.	The	standard	that the	Court announced	in Endrew	F. clarifies	the	scope	of the	FAPE	requirements	in the	IDEA	and,	as such, applies	to the provision	of FAPE	to any IDEA	-eligible	child	with a disability,	as defined	by	the law.	The	standard in Endrew	F. applies regardless	of the	child’s	disability,	the	age	of the child,	or the child’s	current	placement.	CONSIDERATIONS	FOR	IMPLEMENTATION	10.	What	does	“reasonably	calculated”	mean?	The	“reasonably	calculated” standard	recognizes	that developing	an	appropriate	IEP	requires	a prospective judgment	by	the	IEP	Team.	Generally,	this means	that	school	personnel	will make	decisions	that	are informed	by	their own	expertise, the progress	of the	child, the child’s	potential	for growth,	and	the	views of the	child’s	parents.	IEP	Team	members should	consider how special	education	and	related	services, if any,	have	been provided to the	child	in the	past,	including	the	effectiveness	of specific instructional	strategies	and supports an	d services	with the	student.	In determining	whether an	IEP	is reasonably	calculated to enable	a child	to make progress,	the	IEP	Team	should consider	the	child’s	previous	rate of	academic	growth,	whether	the child	is on track	to achieve	or exceed	grade	-level	proficiency,	any	behaviors interfering	with	the child’s	progress,	and	additional	information	and input provided	by	the	child’s	parents.	As stated	by	the	Court,	“any	review	of an	IEP	must consider whether	the IEP	is reasonably	calculated	to ensure such	progress,	not whether it would be considered	ideal.”	5 Q&A	on U.	S. Supreme	Court	Case	Decision	Endrew	F. v. Douglas	County	School	District Re	-1 6 11.	What	does	“progress	appropriate	in	light of the	child’s	circumstances”	mean?	The essential	function of	an	IEP	is to	provide	meaningful	opportunities	for appropriate	academic	and	functional	advancement, and	to enable	the	child to make	progress.	The	expectations	of progress	in the	IEP	must	be	appropriate	in light	of the child’s	unique	circumstances.	This reflects	the focus	on the	individualized needs	of the particular	child	that is at the	core	of the IDEA.	It also	reflects	States’	responsibility	to offer	instruction	“specially	designed” to meet a child’s	unique	needs	through	an	IEP.	6 While	the Court did not specifically	define	“in	light	of the child’s	circumstances,”	the	decision	emphasized	the individualized	decision	-making	required in the	IEP	process	and	the need	to ensure	that every	child	should have	the chance to meet	challenging	objectives.	The IDEA’s	focus	on the individual	needs	of each	child	with a disability	is an	essential	consideration	for	IEP	Teams.	Individualized	decision	-making	is particularly	important when	writing	annual goals	and	other IEP	content	because “the	IEP	must	aim	to enable	the	chil	d to make	progress.”	7 For	example,	the	Court stated	that the	IEP	Team,	which must include	the	child’s	parents	8 as Team	members,	must give	“careful	consideration	to the	child’s	present	levels	of achievement,	disability,	and	potential for growth.”	12.	How	can	an IEP	Team	ensure that every	child	has	the chance to	meet	challenging	objectives?	The IEP	must include	annual goals	that	aim to improve	educational	results	and	functional	performance	for	each	child with a	disability.	This inherently	includes a meaningful	opportunity	for	the child	to meet	challenging	objectives.	Each	child	with a disability	must be offered	an	IEP	that is designed	to provide	access	to instructional	strategies	and	curricula	aligned	to both	challenging	State	academic content	standards	and	ambitious	goals,	based	on	the unique	circumstances	of that	child.	The IEP	must be	developed in a	way	that ensures that children	with	disabilities have the chance to meet	challenging	objectives, as reflected	in the	child’s	IEP	goals.	Each	child’s	IEP	must i	nclude, among	other	information,	an	accurate	statement of	the child's	present	levels	of academic	achievement	and	functional	performance	and	measurable	annual	goals,	including	academic	and	functional	goals.	9 This information	must include how the	child's	disability	affects	the	child's	involvement	and progress in the	general	education curriculum.	How	IEP	Team	members	evaluate	and	assess	this information,	as well	as the	establishment	of the	child’s	IEP	goals,	will	each	contribute to ensuring	the child	has	access	to challenging	objectives.	The IEP	Team’s	effectiveness	in gathering	and	interpreting	this information	will ensure that, in	establishing	IEP	goals,	the	child	has	the opportunity	to meet	challenging	objectives.	As the	Court	6 137	S.Ct.	at 999.	7 137	S.Ct.	at 999.	8 The	term	“parent”	means	a biological	or adoptive	parent	of a child;	a foster	parent,	unless	State	law,	regulations,	or contractual	obligations	with	a State	or local	entity	prohibit	a foster	parent	from	acting	as a parent;	a guardian	generally	authorized	to act	as the	child's	parent,	or authorized	to make	educational	decisions	for	the	child	(but	not	the	State	if the	child	is a ward of the	State);	an individual	acting	in the	place	of a biological or adoptive	parent	(including	a grandparent,	stepparent,	or other	relative)	with	whom	the	child	lives,	or an individual	who	is legally	responsible	for	the	child's	welfare;	or a surrogate	parent	who	has	been	appointed	in accordance	with	34	CFR	§300.519.	34 CFR	§300.30.	9 20	U.S.C.	1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)	-(IV)	and	34 CFR	§300.320(a)(1)	–(4). Q&A	on U.	S. Supreme	Court	Case	Decision	Endrew	F. v. Douglas	County	School	District Re	-1 7 stated	in Endrew	F., “the	IEP	must	aim	to enable	the	child	to make progress.”	10 Determining	an	appropriate	and	challenging	level of progress	is an	individualized determination	that is unique to	each	child.	When making this determination,	each	child’s	IEP	Team	must consider	the child’s	present	levels	of performance	and	other	factors	such as the child’s	previous	rate	of progress	and	any	information	provided	by	the	child’s	parents.	13.	How	can	IEP	Teams	determine	if IEP	annual	goals	are	appropriately	ambitious?	As the	Court stated,	“a	dvancement	from	grade to grade is appropriately	ambitious for	most	children	in the	regular	classroom;” however,	the Court also	noted that	while	these	“goals	may	differ…every	child	should have the chance	to meet challenging	objectives	.”11 In order to make	FAPE	available	to each	eligible child	with a disability,	the child’s	IEP	must	be	designed	to enable	the child	to be involved in, and	make	progress	in,	the general	education	curriculum.	12 The	term	“general	education	curriculum”	is “the	same	curriculum as for	nondisabled	children.”	13 We	have	previously	clarified that the	phrase	“the	same	curriculum as for nondisabled	children” is the	curriculum	that is based	on a	State’s	academic	content standards.	This	alignment, however,	must	guide,	and	not replace,	the	individualized decision	-making required	in the	IEP	process.	This	decision	-making	continues to	“require careful	consideration	of the child’s	present	levels	of achievement,	disability,	and potential for growth”	as discussed	in question	#11.	14 14.	How	can	IEP	Teams	implement	the	Endrew F. standard for	children	with	the	most	significant cognitive disabilities?	The	Department	recognizes	that there	is a	small number	of children	—	those	with the	most	significant	cognitive	disabilities	—	whose	performance can be	measured	against	alternate	academic achievement	standards.	15 Alternate	academic	achievement	standards	also	must be	aligned	with the	State’s	grade	-level	content	standards.	Therefore,	annual	IEP	goals	for	children	with the	most significant	cognitive	disabilities	should be	appropriately	ambitious,	based	on the State’s	content standards,	and	“reasonably	calculated	to enable	the	child	to make progress	appropriate in light	of the	child’s	circumstances.”	15.	What	actions	should IEP	Teams	take	if a child	is not	making	progress	at	the level	the	IEP	Team	expected?	An	IEP	is not a guarantee	of a	specific	educational	or functional	result	for a child	with a	disability.	However,	the	IDEA	does	provide	for	revisiting	the	IEP	if the	expected	progress	is not	occ	urring. This is p	artic	ularly import	ant beca	use of the	Court	’s d	ecision in	End	rew F., whi	ch clarifies	that	the standard	for	determining	whether	an	IEP	is sufficient	to provide FAPE	is whether	the	child	is offered	an	IEP	reasonably	calculated	to enable	the	child to make progress	that is appropriate	in light	of the	child’s	circumstances.	At least once a	year,	IEP	Teams	must	review the	child's	IEP	to determine whether	the annual goals	for	the child	are	being	achieved.	10 137	S.Ct.	at 999.	11 137	S.Ct.	at 1000.	12 20	U.S.C.	1414(d)(1)(A)	and	34 CFR	§300.320(a).	13 20	U.S.C.	20	U.S.C.	1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)(aa)	and	34	CFR	§300.320(a)(1)(i).	14 137	S.Ct.	at 999.	15 See	section	1111(b)(1)(E)	of the	Elementary	and	Secondary	Education	Act	(ESEA),	and	Section	200.6(c)	of the	Department’s	regulations	for	Title	I Part	A of the	ESEA. Q&A	on U.	S. Supreme	Court	Case	Decision	Endrew	F. v. Douglas	County	School	District Re	-1 8 The IEP	Team	also	may	meet	periodically	throughout the	course	of the	school	year,	if circumstances	warrant	it. For example,	if a child	is not making	expected	progress	toward	his or	her	annual	goals,	the	IEP	Team	must revise,	as appropriate,	the	IEP	to address the	lack	of progress.	16 Although	the public	agency	is responsible for determining	when it is necessary	to conduct	an	IEP	Team	meeting,	the parents	of a child with a	disability	have	the	right	to request	an	IEP	Team	meeting	at any	time.	If a child	is not making	progress	at the level the	IEP	Team	expected, despite receiving	all	the services	and	supports identified in the	IEP,	the	IEP	Team	must	meet	to review	and	revise	the	IEP	if necessary,	to ensure	the	child	is receiving	appropriate	interventions,	special	education	and	related	services	and	supplementary	aids	and	services,	and	to en	sure	the	IEP’s	goals	are individualized and	ambitious.	Public	agencies	may	find	it useful	to examine	current	practices	for engaging	and	communicating	with parents	throughout	the	school	year	as IEP	goals	are	evaluated	and	the	IEP	Team	determines	whether	the	child	is making	progress	toward	IEP	goals.	IEP	Teams	should use	the periodic	progress	reporting required	at 34	CFR	§300.320(a)(3)(ii)	to inform	parents	of their	child’s	progress.	Parents	and other	IEP	Team	members should collaborate	and	partner to track	progress	appropriate	to the	child’s	circumstances.	16.	Must IEPs	address	the	use	of	positive behavioral interventions	and	supports?	Where	necessary	to provide	FAPE,	IEPs	must include	consideration	of behavioral	needs	in the	development,	review,	and revision	of IEPs.	17 IEP	Teams	must consider	and,	if necessary	to provide	FAPE,	include	appropriate	behavioral	goals	and objectives	and	other appropriate	services	and	supports in the	IEPs	of children	whose	behavior	impedes their	own learning	or the	learning	of their	peers.	18 17.	How	does	the	Endrew	F. decision	impact	placement	decisions?	Consistent with the d	ecision in	End	rew F., the Departme	nt continu	es to r	ec	ognize that it is essential	to make individualized determinations	about	what	constitutes	appropriate instruction	and	services	for	each	child	with a disability	and	the	placement	in which	that instruction	and	those	services	can be	provided	to the	child.	There	is no “one	-size	-fits	-all” approach	to educating	children	with disabilities.	Rather,	placement	decisions must be individualized	and	made	consistent	with a	child’s	IEP.	19 We	note that	placement	in regular	classes	may	not be the	least	restrictive	placement	for	every	child	with a	disability.	The	IDEA	Part	B regulations	specify	that	each	public	agency	must	ensure	that a	continuum	of alternative placements	(including	instruction	in regular	classes,	special	classes,	special	schools, home	instruction,	placement	in private	schools,	and	instruction	in hospitals	and institutions)	is available	to meet	the	needs	of children	with disabilities	for special	education	and	related	services.	20 16 20	U.S.C.	1412(d)(4)(A).	17 20	U.S.C.	1414(d)(3)(B)(i)	and	34 CFR	§300.324(a)(2)(i)	and	(b)(2).	18 20	U.S.C.	1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)	-(IV)	and	34	CFR	§300.320(a)(4).	19 20	U.S.C.	1412(a)(5)	20 20 U.S.C.	1412(a)(5) Q&A	on U.	S. Supreme	Court	Case	Decision	Endrew	F. v. Douglas	County	School	District Re	-1 9 18.	Is there	anything IEP	Teams	should	do	differently	as a result	of	the	Endrew F. decision?	The	Court in Endrew	F. held	that	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	and	expressly	rejected	the merely	more	than de	minim	is, or trivial	progress	standard.	Although	the Court did not determine	any	one	test	for	determining	what	appropriate	progress	would look like for	every	child,	IEP	Teams	must	implement	policies,	procedures,	and	practices	relating	to (1)	identifying	present	levels	of academic achievement	and functional	performance;	(2)	the setting	of measurable	annual	goals,	including academic and	functional	goals; and	(3)	how a	child’s	progress	toward meeting	annual	goals	will be	measured	and	reported,	so	that the	Endrew	F. standard is met for each	individual child	with a disability.	Separately,	IEP	Teams	and other	school	personnel	should be	able	to de	monstrate	that, consistent	with the	provisions	in the child’s	IEP,	they	are	providing	special	education	and	related	services	and	supplementary	aids	and services;	making	program	modifications;	providing	supports for	school	personnel;	and	allowing	for appropriate	accommodations	that	are reasonably	calculated	to enable	a child	to make progress	appropriate	in light	of the	child’s	circumstances	and	enable the	child	to have	the chance to meet	challenging	objectives.	19.	Is there	anything SEAs should	do	differently	as a result	of	the	Endrew F. decision	? SEAs	should review policies,	procedures,	and	practices	to provide	support	and	appropriate	guidance to school districts and	IEP	Teams	to ensure	that	IEP	goals	are appropriately	ambitious	and	that all	childr	en	have	the opportunity	to meet	challenging	objectives.	States can	help	ensure	that every	child	with a disability	has an	IEP	that enables the child	to be involved in and	make	progress	in the	general	education	curriculum	and	is appropriately	ambitious	in light	of the child’s	circumstances.	21 While	many	States	and	school districts are	already	meeting	the	standard	established	in End	rew F., this is an oppo	rtuni	ty to wo	rk togeth	er to ens	ure that we	are holding	all children	with disabilities	to high	standards	and	providing	access	to challenging	academic	content	and	achievement	standards.	20.	Has the	Endrew F. decision	affected	parents’ due	process	rights	under	the IDEA?	No.	Parents	can	continue	to use	the	IDEA	Part	B mediation	and	due	process procedures	if they	disagree with	IEP	Team	determinations	about	the	special	education	and	related	services	that are	appropriate	and	necessary	for their	child	to receive	FAPE.	22 As reflected	in Endrew	F., the	IDEA	provides	a mechanism	whereby	parents	may	opt to place their	child	in a private	school	setting	in circumstances	where	they	believe	FAPE	has	been	denied.	If a court	or hearing	officer	determines	that a	school	failed	to make	FAPE	available	in a timely	manner prior	to enrollment in a private	school	setting,	that the private	placement	is appropriate, and	that the parents provided	notice to the school	district, parents	may	recover the	costs	of the	private	placement.	23 Nothing	in Endrew	F. changes	or amends	these procedural	due process	rights.	21 20	USC	§1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV);	137	S.Ct.	at 1000.	22 34	CFR	§§300.506	-300.516	23 34 CFR	§300.148(c).
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-63354 group-blog elementor-default
← OSEP LETTER: September 8, 2017 to Brian Radziwill
OSEP LETTER: April 18, 2018 to David Kane →