Home · Know Your Rights

"Making progress" has a legal definition — and it's higher than schools admit

The law: Endrew F. v. Douglas County (U.S. Supreme Court, 2017)

"He's making progress." It's the sentence parents hear most at IEP meetings — and for decades, schools could defend almost any IEP with it, because some courts required only a bit more than nothing ("merely more than de minimis"). That era ended in 2017, when a unanimous United States Supreme Court decided Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District.

What the Court actually said

The Court held that an IEP must be "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances." Chief Justice Roberts, writing for all eight justices, rejected the barely-more-than-nothing standard: a student offered an educational program providing merely more than de minimis progress "can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all."

What it means at your kitchen table

Three practical consequences. First, "appropriate" is measured against YOUR child — their circumstances, their potential — not against the lowest bar the district can clear. Second, recycled goals are a red flag: if this year's goals look like last year's goals, the IEP is not calculated for progress; it's calculated for paperwork. Third, ambition is legally relevant — the Court wrote that every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives.

How to use it

You don't have to argue case law. At the meeting, ask: "Can you show me how this goal is calculated for progress appropriate to his circumstances?" and "This goal appears unchanged from last year — what data supports repeating it?" Put both questions in writing afterward. Schools know Endrew F.; invoking its language signals you do too.

Quick answers

What did Endrew F. change?

It set a nationwide floor: an IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances — rejecting the old "merely more than de minimis" standard some courts used.

Was the decision close?

No — it was unanimous (8-0, decided March 22, 2017).

Do copy-pasted goals violate Endrew F.?

Repeating goals without new data is strong evidence the IEP is not calculated for meaningful progress. Ask in writing for the data behind any repeated goal.

Get answers about YOUR child's situation — with the law attached

Ask Know Your Rights any IEP question in plain language, free. And before the school year starts, run the free Fall IEP Audit — it grades last spring's IEP so you know exactly what to push on.

Ask Know Your Rights → Run the Free Fall Audit

One good IEP tip a week 💜

Short, practical, from a mom who's been in that chair — a script to use, a right to know, a deadline to watch. No spam, never sold, unsubscribe anytime.