Running head: DECISION ON ENDREW F. V.

DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1

Students with Disabilities Rights are Improved by the US Supreme Court

Kristy J. Keaton

Weber State University

DECISION ON ENDREW F. V. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2

Understanding IDEA and IEP

Individual States are given federal funds to support the education of children with

disabilities through The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), (IDEA, 2017).

The funding from this ACT is provisional, given that every State grant qualified students with a

“free appropriate education,” or FAPE, (IDEA, 2017). Eligible students have personalized plans

that specifically state their needs and accommodations known as the “individualized education

program,” (IEP), (IDEA, 2017).

In reference to the Act,

“The Court held that the Act guarantees a substantively adequate program of education to

all eligible children, and that this requirement is satisfied if the child’s IEP sets out an

educational program that is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive

educational benefits.” …For children fully integrated in the regular classroom, this would

typically require an IEP “reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing

marks and advance from grade to grade,” (Endrew F. 2017).

Students can see success and improvement in with their IEP’s, with the assistance of their

teacher and on staff professionals, such as case manager.

The Parents of Endrew F. Seek Justice

Endrew F. is a child with a learning disability on the autistic spectrum (Endrew F.

2017).1 He was a student in the Douglas County School District during the time of preschool, up

until his fifth year. His parents soon believed that Endrew was no longer progressing in school.

The district did not make new accommodations or seek new ways to help Endrew take steps

forward. The district decided to carry on with the similar IEP for Endrew’s fifth grade year.

Endrew’s parents were displeased and withdrew their son from the school and placed him a
DECISION ON ENDREW F. V. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 3

specialized, private school. They discovered that Endrew was improving in his new school

environment.

Endrew’s parents filed a complaint under the IDEA with the Colorado Department of

Education, requesting the compensation for their son’s new private school’s tuition.

“Their claim was denied, and a Federal District Court affirmed that determination. The

Tenth Circuit 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,” (Endrew F. 2017).

The Vision of an IEP

An IEP has many attentive persons responsible for the execution of the plan for which it

is created.

“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 advancement. 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 offer instruction

“specially designed” to meet a child’s “unique needs” through an “[i]ndividualized

education program,” (Endrew F. 2017).

Due to the specifically unique needs of the student, an analysis of their progression is

determined with customary assessments. Those assessments will reflect their understanding and

familiarity of the course content, determine their grades and their overall progression to higher

grade levels, (Endrew F. 2017).

DECISION ON ENDREW F. V. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 4

The parent’s of Endrew believed that with FAPE, “an education that aims to provide a

child with a disability opportunities to achieve academic success, attain self-sufficiency, and

contribute to society that are substantially equal to the opportunities afforded children without

disabilities,” (Endrew F. 2017).

The Events of the Case

The ruling determined that school districts are obligated to provide students with

disabilities the opportunities to significant progress. The ruling was an eight to zero outcome by

the Supreme Court. Several backed the court briefs demanding that it was “time to increase the

rigor, expectations and accommodations for all,” (Camera, 2017). The speaker wrapped up in

conclusion,

“We will not attempt to elaborate on what “appropriate” progress will look like from case

to case. It is in the nature of the Act and the standard we adopt to resist such an effort:

The adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique 16 ENDREW F. v. DOUGLAS

COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. RE–1 Opinion of the Court circumstances of the child for

whom it was created. This absence of a bright-line rule, however, should not be mistaken

for “an invitation to the courts to substitute their own notions of sound educational policy

for those of the school authorities which they review.” Rowley, 458 U.S., at 206,”

(Endrew F. 2017).

It was also noted that the respect of utilization of the IEP is recognized by those in based

on the proficiency of the school authorities. The authorized IDEA representatives are

accountable for the choices of IEP for the student with disabilities and that parents as well as

school administrators should be a part of such decisions.

DECISION ON ENDREW F. V. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 5

“By the time any dispute reaches court, school authorities will have had a complete

opportunity to bring their expertise and judgment to bear on areas of disagreement. A

reviewing court may fairly expect those authorities to be able to offer a cogent and

responsive explanation for their decisions that shows the IEP is reasonably calculated to

enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of his circumstances. The judgment

of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is vacated, and the case is

remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered,” (Endrew

F. 2017).

This case will now serve the “roughly 6.4 million students with disabilities between ages

three-twenty one, representing roughly thirteen percent of all students.” (Camera, 2017). Endrew

and his parents might have not their first couple of battles, but they won their war. Hopefully,

this further advancement of expectations for students will increase the percentages of those that

leave school or do not graduate.

DECISION ON ENDREW F. V. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 6

References

Camera, Lauren. (2017, March 22). Supreme Court Expands Rights for Students with

Disabilities. U.S. News and World Report.Retrieved from

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2017-03-22/supreme-court-

expands-rights-for-students-with-disabilities

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. Re-1 (03/22/2017)

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statuteregulations/

IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (n.d.). Web site. Retrieved from October 14,

2017, https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statuteregulations/