Historically, children with disabilities received unequal treatment in the public education system throughout the United States. During and shortly thereafter the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, many parents and advocacy groups for children with disabilities began their own movement by using the U.S. federal court system to compel states to provide equal educational opportunities and rights for children with disabilities. The early cases discussed reflect how the legal rights of students with disabilities emerged, eventually leading to FAPE (free appropriate public education) and the enactment of the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) 20 U.S.C. Section 1400.

“In these days, it is doubtful that any child may be reasonably expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right that must be made available to all on equal terms.”

– Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the unanimous United States Supreme Court, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954)

1. Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

• While not specifically about special education, this Supreme Court case ruled that "separate but equal" schools were unconstitutional.

• It laid the foundation for later cases advocating for students with disabilities, arguing that segregation and exclusion were discriminatory.

2. Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972)

• One of the first cases that secured education rights for students with disabilities.

• The court ruled that students with intellectual disabilities could not be denied public education.

3. Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972)

• Expanded on the PARC ruling by applying it to all disabilities, not just intellectual disabilities.

• Stated that lack of funding was not an excuse for schools to exclude students with disabilities.

4. Board of Education v. Rowley (1982)

• The first Supreme Court case about special education under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), now IDEA.

• Ruled that schools must provide students with disabilities a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE) but not necessarily the best education—just one that allows for educational progress.

5. Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984)

• Determined that schools must provide related services (such as catheterization) if they are necessary for the child to access education.

6. Honig v. Doe (1988)

• Protected students with disabilities from being suspended or expelled for behaviors related to their disability.

7. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017)

• Clarified that under IDEA, schools must provide an education that is "appropriately ambitious" and enables students to make meaningful progress.

These cases helped shape laws like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, ensuring equal educational opportunities for students with disabilities.

The Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) case refined the legal standard for Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by establishing a two-part test to determine whether an IEP meets FAPE requirements.

The Endrew F. Two-Part Test for FAPE

1. Is the IEP “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress” in light of their unique circumstances?
   
   

   • The IEP must be tailored to the child’s individual needs and abilities.

   • The goals and supports in the IEP should be ambitious yet achievable, considering the child’s disability.

2. Does the IEP provide more than “de minimis” (minimal) progress?
   
   

   • The Supreme Court rejected the previous standard, which allowed schools to provide just barely more than trivial educational benefit.

   • Instead, the IEP must provide meaningful educational progress that enables the child to advance appropriately based on their unique abilities.

Key Takeaways from the Decision

• Schools cannot use low expectations for students with disabilities as a justification for limited progress.

• The IEP must be outcome-driven, helping the student achieve real academic and functional progress.

• While the court did not define a specific level of progress, it emphasized that students with disabilities deserve a substantive education, not just access to schooling.

Impact of This Standard:

Before Endrew F., some courts interpreted Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) as requiring only a minimal educational benefit ("merely more than de minimis"). The Endrew F. ruling rejected that low standard and clarified that IDEA demands more than just minimal progress.

While not a rigid "2-part test," courts now evaluate IEPs based on:

1. Is the IEP tailored to the child’s unique needs and set challenging, individualized goals?

2. Does it provide meaningful educational progress, not just minimal advancement?