How has the Endrew F case affected the way IEPs are created or formulated for autistic children?

The case—Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District—involved “Drew,” a boy with autism who made almost no progress on his IEP goals. His parents said he was entitled to more under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the nation’s special education law. They asked the Court to rule that the boy should have had an “equal opportunity” to achieve success like other kids. The school district, however, argued that the boy only had the right to a de minimis, or minimal, benefit from the IEP. And that’s what he received, the school district said.

In a 16-page decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, writing for a unanimous court, rejected the school district’s de minimis standard. He wrote that IDEA aims for “grade level advancement for children with disabilities who can be educated in the regular classroom.” Therefore, a de minimis standard makes no sense:

When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing “merely more than de minimis” progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all. For children with disabilities, receiving instruction that aims so low would be tantamount to “sitting idly… awaiting the time when they were old enough to ‘drop out.’”

But Roberts also didn’t accept the “equal opportunity” standard that Drew’s parents wanted. Instead, he crafted a more flexible standard:

The IDEA demands more. It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.