In a significant ruling on March 17, the Supreme Court unanimously endorsed higher educational benchmarks for students with disabilities, marking a pivotal moment in education law. The case, known as Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, centered on the extent of educational benefits that public schools are obligated to provide. While some lower courts interpreted requirements as necessitating a “meaningful” educational benefit, others only mandated minimal progress—barely above the lowest threshold.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court evaluated nine different levels of educational standards. Ultimately, they unanimously (8-0) decided that schools are required to offer more than just “merely more than de minimis” education. Instead, they must create opportunities for “appropriately ambitious” advancement for students with disabilities.
Approximately 6.4 million children aged 3 to 21 in the United States have disabilities, representing around 13% of the total student population. This ruling has far-reaching implications for countless students. Chief Justice John Roberts articulated that schools must provide individualized education plans (IEPs) tailored to each child’s needs, as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). He emphasized that it is unacceptable for the IDEA to only expect minimal progress for children not fully integrated into general classrooms, while expecting grade-level advancement for those who are.
The phrase “merely more than de minimis” had been invoked in lower court cases concerning special education, including by Judge Brian Thompson, a nominee for the Supreme Court. The recent ruling prompted discussions during his confirmation hearings.
Legal advocates like the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law have long championed the rights of students with disabilities, emphasizing that they deserve the same educational opportunities as their peers. Prior to the ruling, legal director Ira Burnim expressed hope that the Supreme Court would recognize that appropriate education for students with disabilities should mirror the expectations set for all students.
Currently, around 400,000 students with disabilities exit the education system each year, with nearly 40% doing so without a high school diploma. Only 65% of these students complete high school, significantly contributing to the overwhelming statistic that only one in three Americans with disabilities are employed, leading many to live in poverty. This situation results in increased government benefit costs for those unable to work and a heightened risk of entering the school-to-prison pipeline. Today, more than 750,000 individuals with disabilities are incarcerated in the U.S., many of whom struggle with literacy.
Jennifer Thompson, president of RespectAbility, a nonprofit organization dedicated to advocating for individuals with disabilities, expressed her elation regarding the ruling. She noted that the current educational landscape for students with disabilities can be disheartening. Her family had to relocate to secure a quality public school for their children with disabilities, a privilege not available to all families. “Every child should have access to the education and skills they need to succeed,” she stated. “This Supreme Court decision can pave the way for students with disabilities to thrive just like their peers.”
The IDEA, established in 1975, mandates that school districts provide a “free appropriate public education” to children with disabilities, which includes the development of IEPs. The law also allocates federal funds to support these services, although full funding has never been achieved, leaving some districts struggling to comply.
The case originated when Endrew F. (Drew), a boy with autism, was not making progress in public school, prompting his parents to enroll him in a private institution where he thrived. Under IDEA, parents can seek tuition reimbursement if their child does not receive sufficient educational benefits from public schooling. Drew’s parents faced denial from the school district, leading to their appeal.
The Tenth Circuit Court in Denver ruled that the district only needed to provide Drew with an education that offered “merely more than de minimis” benefit, which the school claimed to have fulfilled. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected this interpretation.
In support of Drew’s case, the Bazelon Center and the law firm Kellogg Huber Hansen submitted an amicus brief on behalf of former U.S. Department of Education officials who had overseen the implementation of IDEA. This brief highlighted that advances in special education practices enable most students with disabilities to perform at levels comparable to their peers, with many schools adopting these practices to help students achieve proficiency across various subjects.
Mizrahi added that this decision is also beneficial for employers and taxpayers, as individuals with disabilities can contribute unique talents and perspectives in the workforce. Notable figures, such as CEO Charles Schwab and entrepreneur Richard Branson, have thrived despite disabilities, proving that the right educational support can lead to remarkable achievements.
Invisible disabilities, such as dyslexia and ADHD, can equally hinder academic success, affecting one in five individuals. Many students with these conditions, despite their intelligence, face early setbacks that can lead to long-term challenges.
Moreover, individuals with disabilities are significantly underrepresented in higher education. Among the 1.2 million individuals with disabilities aged 16 to 20 in the U.S., only 16.4% of those 25 and older had completed a bachelor’s degree in 2014, compared to 34.6% of their non-disabled counterparts.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of higher educational standards for students with disabilities marks a historic accomplishment that aims to ensure equitable educational opportunities for all children, ultimately enhancing their prospects for success in life and the workforce.