Special Education

High Court Arguments Focus on Spec. Ed. Benefits

By Mark Walsh — January 17, 2017 4 min read
Jeffrey L. Fisher argues to the U.S. Supreme Court that federal law requires special education to provide “substantially equal educational opportunities.”
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The U.S. Supreme Court last week wrestled over a handful of words and phrases that could set the standard for the level of benefit that school districts nationwide must provide to students in special education.

“What is frustrating about this case and about this statute is that we have a blizzard of words,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said late in the Jan. 11 oral arguments in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (Case No 15-827), referring to words such as “significant” and “meaningful.”

“If you read them literally, it’s not clear to me they mean anything different,” Alito said. “What everybody seems to be looking for is the word that has just the right nuance to express this thought.”

Three Perspectives

The justices were offered plenty of advice from three lawyers who argued before them. One represented the Colorado student with autism known as Drew, now 17, whose parents contend that the individualized education program offered by his school failed to provide any educational benefit to him.

Jeffrey L. Fisher, a Stanford University law professor representing the family, told the court that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act “does not permit a school district to provide a child with a disability a barely more than de minimis educational benefit.” He was referring to language used by a federal appeals court in the case.

“Rather,” Fisher continued, “what the act requires is for the school to provide instruction and related services to the child that are reasonably calculated to provide substantially equal educational opportunities.”

Another perspective came from the Obama administration, with Irv Gornstein, a counselor to the U.S. solicitor general, backing the student, but offering a slightly different standard.

A valid IEP is “a program that is reasonably calculated to make significant educational progress in light of the child’s circumstances,” he said, adding that the administration would differ from Fisher’s proposed standard in that “we would say significant progress toward grade-level standards, not as close as possible to grade-level standards.”

And finally, the court heard from Neal K. Katyal, a Washington lawyer representing the Douglas County district. He is defending a ruling last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, that provided that court’s interpretation of a 1982 Supreme Court decision, in Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley.

Under Rowley, a “free, appropriate public education” under the IDEA must confer “some educational benefit” on the student. The 10th Circuit court defined “some educational benefit” as requiring a benefit that is “merely more than de minimis,” or trivial, which is a lower standard than some other federal appeals courts have applied, such as a “meaningful benefit.”

“We think ‘more than de minimis,’ which is what almost every circuit is using right now, has worked and it follows naturally from the ‘some benefit’ language in Rowley,” Katyal said.

Any change in the standard for the level of educational benefit required for a free, appropriate public education under the IDEA was a matter for Congress, not the high court, to decide, Katyal said.

“If this court were to change the standard, you know, it would invite all sorts of litigation,” he said.

Concern on Litigation

Some justices expressed general concerns about the costs to the states and school districts of an expansive special education standard, and some worried that adopting a new standard would subject districts to much new litigation.

“Do you think that costs should be measured against the possible results to be achieved?” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked Gornstein. Not in the usual special education case, Gornstein replied.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer told Fisher that “the problem that’s working in my mind is if we suddenly adopt a new standard, all over the country we’ll have judges and lawyers and people interpreting it differently, and so why isn’t the present situation sufficient?”

Fisher said that everyone agrees “that the IEP process has to be followed. ... The difficulty is that it just doesn’t happen.”

By the end of the argument, it seemed apparent that a majority of the eight-member court was disinclined to accept the standard adopted in this case by the 10th Circuit court, though it was unclear how far the justices might go in backing the student.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told Katyal that his side was “reading the Rowley standard as requiring ‘some benefit,’ and the other side is reading it as saying ‘some benefit.’”

The chief justice’s emphases on the differing words brought laughter in the courtroom.

“It makes a difference,” Roberts continued. “And one reason I think that it’s problematic for you is because Rowley just doesn’t say ‘some benefit.’ It tells you what it is. And it’s enough benefit to keep track with grade progress. And if that’s what the standard is, that’s certainly more than—you know—'slightly more than de minimis.’ ”

Justice Elena Kagan pressed Katyal on his view that the “some educational benefit” standard of Rowley has, as Katyal put it, “been interpreted in court after court to actually have bite.”

“Do you favor a standard with bite?” Kagan asked him.

The Rowley standard “does have some bite,” Katyal said.

Playing on the chief justice’s example of a few minutes earlier, Kagan then asked Katyal, “Would that be ‘some bite’? Or ‘some bite'?” That also drew laughter.

“It is ‘some educational benefit’,” Katyal said. “That’s the language of Rowley. And if you disagree with it, Congress can change it.”

“Well,” Kagan replied, “if somebody said to you, write a standard with bite, I doubt you would come up with the words ‘more than merely de minimis.’ ”

A version of this article appeared in the January 18, 2017 edition of Education Week as Special Education Case Argued at High Court


This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Classroom Technology Webinar
Transform Teaching and Learning with AI
Increase productivity and support innovative teaching with AI in the classroom.
Content provided by Promethean
Curriculum Webinar Computer Science Education Movement Gathers Momentum. How Should Schools React?
Discover how schools can expand opportunities for students to study computer science education.
School & District Management Webinar Fostering Student Well-Being with Programs That Work
Protecting student well-being has never been more important. Join this webinar to learn how to ensure your programs yield the best outcomes.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Special Education The Supreme Court Will Decide a Significant Special Education Case
The justices will decide whether families must exhaust special education proceedings when they seek money damages under other federal laws.
4 min read
People gather as the Supreme Court begins its new term and to hear the first arguments, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, Oct. 3, 2022. Monday's session is also the first time new Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court's first Black female justice, will participate. And it's the first time the public will be able to attend since the court closed in March 2020 because of the coronavirus pandemic.
People gather for the first day of the U.S. Supreme Court's new term Oct. 3, the first time the public was able to attend since the court closed in March 2020 because of the coronavirus pandemic.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Special Education Whitepaper
Understanding Dyslexia: Identity & Support Students at Risk
Download to learn strategies for better supporting students through early screening, instruction, and targeted intervention.
Content provided by Illuminate Education
Special Education Opinion How to Build Inclusive Classrooms
If teachers start from the premise that all students can make valuable contributions, that opens avenues to success.
3 min read
A group of multicolored people stand together looking in both directions
Ada DaSilva/DigitalVision Vectors<br/>