Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1

State: Colorado

Filed: 2016, 2017

Court: U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

Overview: The brief before the U.S. Supreme Court argued that Congress’ move to standards-based education and the IDEA amendments make the Tenth Circuit Court’s bare-bones “merely more than de-minimis” standard for educational benefit untenable. The brief—in support of Drew, a child with autism who was not making progress under his IEP—argued that the IDEA requires school districts to provide students with disabilities an equal opportunity to meet the standards the district applies to all children and that any deviation from that universal standard must be tied to the unique needs of each child. In 2017, the Court issued a unanimous decision definitively rejecting the “merely more than de minimis” standard and holding that the “IDEA demands more.” In 2017, another amicus brief before the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado asked the court to find that the IEP at issue was not “appropriately ambitious” in light of the “markedly more demanding” standard outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Excerpt: “In the years since Rowley, Congress has not been silent. To the contrary, it has repeatedly amended the IDEA. Where the Rowley Court found that Congress had not adopted language providing a ‘substantive standard prescribing the level of education to be accorded handicapped children,’ the post-Rowley amendments have progressively expanded States’ substantive obligations under the statute. These amendments make clear that a school district’s educational interventions must provide a child with a disability an equal opportunity to meet the standards the district applies to all children. Any deviation from that universal standard must be tied to the unique needs of the child. The Tenth Circuit’s merely-more-than-de-minimis test therefore falls far short of the requirements that Congress has imposed since Rowley.”

Status: In 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado held that the school district did not provide an adequate education and must reimburse the family for private school tuition, noting that the IEP “was not appropriately ambitious” under the new standard articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court since it did not provide the plaintiff with a chance “to meet challenging objectives under his particular circumstances.”