Doing Better: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Students

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled 8-0 in favor of mandating a higher standard of education for children with disabilities in the case Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District.

The decision and its unanimity came as a bit of a shock, because the Court had not ruled on an IDEA issue since 1982’s Rowley v. Board of Education, in which it determined that the law required that an IEP (Individualized Education Program) be reasonably calculated to enable a child to receive some educational benefit.

The Tenth Circuit, where Endrew F. originated, had interpreted Rowley to require that education for children with disabilities be merely “serviceable" or just anything “more than de minimis," which means, essentially, better than nothing.

The plaintiff in the new Supreme Court case was a boy who had been diagnosed with autism and ADHD. Endrew attended a public school from kindergarten through fourth grade, but made virtually no progress. In the fifth grade, his parents enrolled him at an expensive private special education school; once there, he made excellent progress. His parents then sued their public school district for the $70,000 annual tuition for this school, claiming that the government had a legal responsibility to provide for this higher level of education for their son, and should, therefore, cover the cost of it.

The lower courts denied their claim, deciding that even though he had not met his IEP goals during the years he spent in public school, Endrew had received at least the opportunity to make some progress. The courts’ logic was that Endrew had received “some benefits” from his public education, and this was in line with the “better than nothing” reasoning that courts in the Tenth Circuit applied since the Rowley decision.

Endrew’s parents appealed, saying that Rowley's “some benefits” should be reinterpreted in light of the strong governmental interest in educational outcomes, especially for students with disabilities. 

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that a high standard of education for disabled children is too onerous for school districts to meet. The standards for public education are in fact supposed to be high. The IDEA was born out of a very optimistic time, immediately after the Civil Rights movement and at the same time as dawning public appreciation of the scandalous nature of special educational facilities throughout the country. Indeed, Congress intended for the IDEA to be very sweeping and ambitious, and this is made clear in the language of the statute. It states that the instruction offered must be "specially designed to meet a child's unique needs through an individualized education program[,]" and that "an IEP is not a form document. It is constructed only after careful consideration of the child's present levels of achievement, disability, and potential for growth."

The Supreme Court rejected the idea that these adjectives in the language of the Act are meaningless. Citing to increasing standards for children with and without disabilities (including, for example, No Child Left Behind), the Court urged that each IEP truly needs to be tailored for each individual student.

Ambitious though it may be in practical terms, I want to emphasize that this does not present school districts with any insurmountable obstacles. On the contrary, planning for a special needs student should not be any harder than planning for a child in a regular education setting; what matters is that the IEP be developed with an eye towards her individual needs.

(It bears noting that the Supreme Court issued this decision right after Judge Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to the Supreme Court, but before he actually took his seat on the Court. As you may recall, Gorsuch was appointed from the Tenth Circuit, where he was, in fact, the author of the decision from which Endrew’s parents had appealed.)

Now while the decision is very good news, it is important to be realistic. I cannot imagine that the Justices were unaware that their decision would be watered down by reality and by the weight of administrative hearings and the license of administrative law judges. Nevertheless, this was a real service to parents and special education advocates throughout the country. While it will not necessarily affect the rights of children with special needs in New York, because the Second Circuit’s own jurisprudence urges a more stringent reading of Rowley than did the Tenth Circuit, it is nevertheless a step in the right direction. 

Marc Gottlieb
Partner
195 Montague Street
14th Floor
Brooklyn Heights, NY 11201
Marc@gottliebfirm.com
(646) 820-8506