*1 THE HENDRICK HUD OF OF EDUCATION BOARD DISTRICT, WESTCHESTER SCHOOL CENTRAL SON BY HER COUNTY, ROWLEY, v. et al. et ux. ROWLEY
PARENTS, 28, Argued June March 198 2 Decided No. 80-1002. *3 J., Court, opinion of the in which Burger, delivered
Rehnquist, J., JJ., joined. Stevens, O’Connor, Blackmun, C. and and Powell, J., J., opinion concurring judgment, post, p. in the White, filed dissenting JJ., joined, a opinion, filed in which Brennan and Marshall, post, p. 212. G. Kuntz
Raymond argued cause petitioners. him on With the briefs were D. Stone, Coon, Robert Jean M. E. Sherman, Paul and Jr., Donald O. Meserve.
Michael A. the cause and filed brief for argued Chatoff respondents.
Elliott Schulder the cause for the United as argued States amicus curiae urging Solici affirmance. On the brief were tor General Lee, Assistant Reynolds, General Wal Attorney ter W. Barnett, and Louise A. Lerner.* * Briefs of amici urging curiae affirmance were filed Charles S. Sims for the American Union; by Yohalem, Civil Liberties Jane Bloom Norman S.Rosenberg, Yohalem, Daniel Wright and Marian for the Edelman opinion of delivered Court. Rehnquist
Justice statutory interpretation. question of presents a This case Appeals the Court and the Dis- Petitioners contend imposed by requirements Con- misconstrued trict Court gress federal funds under upon receive the Edu- agree Handicapped Act. We and reverse the cation of Appeals. judgment of the Court
I Handicapped (Act), Stat. 175, Education (1976 seq. Supp. et C. 1401 ed. S. amended, U. IV), money agencies provides state and federal assist local handicapped educating children, conditions such fund- goals ing upon compliance proce- with extensive a State’s represents an dures. The Act ambitious federal effort to promote the education of children, and was passed Congress’ response perception majority in the United States “were either to- tally sitting idly [were] regular excluded schools awaiting they enough classrooms time when were old (1975)(H. ‘drop Rep. p. Rep.). H. out.’” R. No. 94-332, R. major provisions light The Act’s .evolution and shed question statutory interpretation which is at the heart this case. problem educating first addressed the *4 of the
handicapped in Elementary 1966 when it amended the and Association for Retarded of by Ralph J. al.; Citizens the United States et Moore, Jr., and Franklin D. Kramer for the Maryland Advocacy Unit for the Developmentally Disabled, Charmatz, Inc., al.; by Marc Janet et Stotland, Joseph Blum and al; the National of the Deaf et Association by Minna J. Kotkin Barry and Felder for the York New State Commission Quality of Care for Mentally Disabled, Advocacy Protection and System; by and Michael A. Rebell for the Palsy United Cerebral Associa- tions, Inc., et al. Norman H. Gross, Gwendolyn H. Gregory, Shannon, Thomas A. and August W. Steinhilber filed a brief for the National School Boards Associa- tion et al. as amici curiae.
180 pro- grant
Secondary to a Act of 1965 establish Education assisting gram purpose initiation, in the the States “for the of projects programs improvement . . . expansion, and of handicapped 89-750, L. children.” Pub. of for the education repealed program in 1970 1204. That was 80 Stat. 161, Handicapped 91-230, L. 84 Act, Pub. the Education of program grant simi- a B of which established Part 175, Stat. legislation. repealed purpose Neither the 1966 lar guidelines specific legislation for state contained the 1970 nor primarily grant money; aimed at stimu- of both were use develop lating and to educational resources States handicapped.1 educating personnel for train progress being made under these ear- Dissatisfied with spurred decisions two District Court enactments, and lier given holding handicapped a should be access to greatly Congress increased federal 1974 education,2 handicapped funding for the first of the for education adopt goal providing recipient required “a time opportunities to all children.” full educational (1974 statute). The 1974 L. 88 Stat. 583 93-380, Pub. only, adopted recognized as an measure statute interim was year give an additional which “in order any [was] study re- what if additional Federal assistance quired to meet the needs of to enable the States year study ensuing Rep., H. R. at 4. The children.” Handicapped produced All Children the Education for qualify for federal financialassistance under In order to policy “has in must demonstrate it effect Act, State (1975) (S. 2-8. Rep. 94-168, p. Rep.); Rep., H. R. S. No. 5 1 See 2 Columbia, Mills v. Board Education District cases, Two Pennsylvania Assn. (DC 1972), Retarded Children v. Supp. F. (ED 1971) Commonwealth, Supp. Supp. 334 F. Pa. and 343 F. (1972), prominent as the most were later identified cases contribut ing Congress’ preceded of the Act and the statutes enactment Rep., 3-4. Both decisions are discussed in III of it. H. R. Part this *5 opinion. handicapped right ap-
that assures all children the to a free §1412(1). propriate public education.” U. S. C. That policy plan must be in a reflected state submitted to and approved Secretary § 1413, Education,3 which de- goals, programs, scribes detail the and timetables under handicapped which the State intends to educate children §§ receiving money within its borders. provide handicapped by under the Act must education to the priority, handicapped receiving first “to children who are not handicapped an education” and second “to . . . with handicaps receiving inadequate the most severe who are §1412(3), appropri- education,” and “to maximum extent handicapped ate” must educate children “with children who 1412(5).4 § handicapped.” broadly are not The Act defines “handicapped “mentally children” to include retarded, hard of hearing, speech impaired, visually handicapped, deaf, seri- ously emotionally orthopedically impaired, [and] disturbed, impaired [and] specific other health children, children with 1401(1).5 § learning disabilities.” appropriate public required by The “free education” unique Act is tailored needs of the child (IEP). program” means anof “individualized educational 3 All Education, functions of the Commissioner formerly an officer in Department Health, Education, Welfare, were transferred to Secretary of Education in 1979 passed Department when (1976 Organization Act, §3401 ed., Education 20 U. seq. Supp. S. C. et IV). 3441(a)(1) (1976 IV). ed., § Supp. See 20 U. C. S. 4Despite preference “mainstreaming” this handicapped children— educating nonhandicapped them Congress recognized children — regular simply classrooms would not be a setting suitable for the education many handicapped expressly acknowledges children. The Act that “the severity handicap nature or [may regular such education in be] supplementary classes with the use of aids and services cannot be achieved 1412(5). satisfactorily.” provides The Act thus for the education of settings. separate some children in classes or institutional 1413(a)(4). ibid.; § See variety handicapping conditions, In covering addition to a wide requires special “regardless educational services for children of the se 1414(a)(1)(A). 1412(2)(C), verity handicap.” §§ of their *6 meeting prepared be- 1401(18). at a is § IEP, The local educational representative of the qualified tween guardian, parents or child’s teacher, the agency, child’s aof written docu- child, consists appropriate, the and, where containing ment per-
“(A) present of educational levels of the a statement (B) goals, of annual a statement child, of such formance (C) objectives, a state- including instructional short-term provided specific be services to educational of the ment child be to which such will and the extent child, to such (D) programs, regular participate educational able anticipated projected and duration for initiation date (E) objective appropriate criteria and services, of such procedures and schedules determin- evaluation and ing, instructional ob- basis, annual whether least an on at 1401(19). § being jectives are achieved.” agencies regional must and review, or educational Local annually. IEP at least each child’s revise, where 1413(a)(ll). 1414(a)(5). § § See also already plan IEP de-
In addition to the state and requirements imposes procedural the Act extensive scribed, receiving provisions. upon States federal funds under its guardians noti- Parents or children must be any proposed change evaluation, fied of identification, “the placement provision or educational of the of a free child or the appropriate public per- education to must be child,” such and bring relating complaint “any mitted to to” matter about (E).6 1415(b)(1)(D) §§ such evaluation and education. requirements regard parents complaints permitted be to file ing education, their child’s present IEP is formu and be when the child’s lated, represent only examples paren two to maximize Congress’ effort addition, tal involvement in the education of child. In each the Act requires parents permitted all relevant records “to examine with respect identification, evaluation, placement and educational child, and ... independent to obtain educational evaluation 1415(b)(1)(A). the child.” 1414(a)(4). 1412(4), §§ See also educa- State
Complaints brought by parents guardians must be re- process “an due impartial hearing,” solved at appeal must be if agency provided the state the initial or regional 1415(b)(2) §§ at the local level. is held hearing (c).7 Thereafter, “[a]ny party aggrieved by the findings state administrative and decision” of the has hearing “the *7 civil with to respect to a action the . bring . right complaint. of or in jurisdiction in State court a any competent district without the in regard court the United States to amount 1415(e)(2). § controversy.” Act leaves to
Thus, the the States the although primary for and developing executing educational responsibility pro- it handicapped children, imposes re- grams significant in to be followed the quirements discharge respon- is assured sibility. by provisions the Compliance permitting of federal funds determination that a withholding upon par- or state local has failed to re- ticipating agency the satisfy §§ of the quirements 1414(b)(2)(A), 1416, by pro- vision for review. At judicial present, except all States New policies plan Secretary tional and the state submitted to the of Education must be formulated “consultation with individuals involved or con- children, cerned with the education of handicapped including handicapped 1412(7). parents guardians § individuals and or of handicapped children.” 1412(2)(E). § agencies, See also Local the Act which receive funds under by applying to agency, applications the state must submit which assure they developed have procedures participation for “the and consulta- parents tion guardian[s] or [handicapped] in local educa- children” programs, 1414(a)(l)(C)(iii), § tional itself, along application and the with pertinent “all documents related such made “avail- application,” must be parents, able guardians, public.” general and other members 1414(a)(4). § 7“Any party” hearing to a state or local must administrative (1) “be right accorded accompanied to be counsel and and advised special problems individuals with knowledge training respect (2) confront, of handicapped children, right present evidence and examine, (3) cross compel right a witnesses, attendance of (4) written or right electronic hearing, verbatim record of such findings 1415(d). written of fact and decisions.” portions of the Act at funds under the receive federal Mexico today. as Amicus Curiae for United States Brief issue Amy the education in connection with II This casearose Rowley, in the the Furnace Woods School deaf student at a Y. District, Peekskill, N. Hudson Central School Hendrick Amy lip hearing excellent and is an minimal residual has began attending year During Fur she before reader. parents meeting her and school ad between Woods, nace regular place in a in decision to her resulted ministrators supplemental kindergarten to determine what class order necessary mem to her education. Several services would be Amy's prepared arrival administration bers school interpretation, sign-language by attending and a a course principal's teletype fa in the officeto machine was installed parents who are also deaf. with her cilitate communication *8 Amy period it that was determined At the end of the trial kindergarten class, but that she should remain in the should hearing amplify provided an FM aid which would be with by spoken fel receiver teacher or words into a -wireless Amy during suc classroom activities. low students certain kindergarten year. cessfully completed her Amy prepared required IEP for an was dur- As first-grade year. provided ing IEP her The that the fall of regular Amy in a classroom at should be educated Furnace hearing the FM aid, to use Woods, should continue from for the deaf for one a tutor should receive instruction day speech therapist a for three and from hours hour each Rowleys agreed parts IEP but each week. provided sign-language Amy qualified that also insisted interpreter of the in all her academic classes lieu assistance parts interpreter proposed in of the IEP. Such an had other Amy’skindergarten placed experi- for a 2-week class been Amy interpreter reported period, that did but the had mental time. The school administra- need his services at that Amy tors that likewise concluded did not need such an inter- preter first-grade They in her classroom. reached this con- consulting clusion after the school district’s Committee on Handicapped, expert which had received evidence from Amy’s parents importance sign-language on of a inter- preter, testimony Amy’s received teacher other persons progress, familiar with her academic and social visited class for the deaf. request interpreter
When their for an denied, was Rowleys hearing demanded and received a before an inde- pendent receiving examiner. After evidence from both agreed sides, the examiner with the administrators’ deter- interpreter necessary mination an was not because “Amy achieving educationally, academically, was and so- cially” App. without such assistance. Pet. Cert. F-22. appeal The examiner’s decision was affirmed on the New York Commissioner of Education basis of substantial evidence in the Id., record. at E-4. Pursuant the Act’s provision judicial Rowleys brought review, then an action in the United States District Court for the Southern claiming York, District of New administrators’ de- sign-language interpreter nial constituted a denial of guaranteed by the “free education” Act. Amy remarkably
The District found “is a Court well- adjusted child” who interacts and communicates well with “developed extraordinary rapport” her classmates and has (1980). Supp. 483 F. with her teachers. It also performs average found that “she better than the in her child *9 advancing easily grade grade,” class and is to at id., considerably goes 534, but “that she understands less of what if class than she she not could were deaf” and thus “is learning academically, performing not as well as much, disparity handicap,” id., she would without her at 532. This Amy’s potential between achievement and her led the court receiving appropriate pub- to that she a “free decide was not 186 opportunity as “an to court defined the which education,”
lie opportu- potential with the commensurate [her] full achieve According Id., at 534. nity provided children.” to other “requires poten- that the standard such a Court, the District compared be measured child tial resulting performance, the differential or and that his or her experienced compared shortfall non- ‘shortfall’ The District Ibid. Court’s defini- handicapped children.” assumption responsibility that the from its tion arose ‘appropriate requirement of an educa- “giv[ing] content ” entirely [federal] courts and the left “been tion’ had hearing 533.8 at Id., officers.” Appeals panel Court of of the United States
A divided Appeals The Court of affirmed. Circuit for the Second [District [C]ourt’s “agree[d] of law,” conclusions clearly “findings [were] errone- fact that its held (1980). F. 2d 947 ous.” 632 interpre- granted the lower courts’ certiorari to review
We (1981). 454 961 review re- of the Act. U. S. Such tation quires questions: two What is meant us to consider appropriate public requirement education”? of a “free Act’s exercising And is the role of state and federal courts what §1415? granted by consider the review 20 U. We S. C. questions separately.9 these record, Court con For reasons that are not revealed in the the District ” ‘appropriate “[t]he
cluded that itself does not education.’ define Supp., fact, phrase “free expressly F. In the Act defines public education,” 1401(18), § Court see the District which statutory referring. was Supp., overlooking See 483 F. at 533. After definition, the inter sought guidance regulations District Court not from preting Re regulations § but from 504 of the promulgated under 84.33(b). Act. Supp., 533, citing habilitation See 483 F. CFR IEP cre respondents was challenged in District Court ated for the District year. 1978-1979 school that the Petitioners contend reviewing Court erred in and be year that IEP school had ended after the for subse develop fore school IEP administrators were able to another years. quent disagree. more than invariably We takes Judicial review
187 III A is the in which this This first case Court has been called provision upon interpret any previ- of the Act. As noted ously, Appeals the District Court and the Court of concluded ‘appropriate “[t]he does not define Act itself educa- Supp., at tion,’” 533, 483 F. but leaves “to the courts and responsibility “giv[ing] hearing officers” the content to an‘appropriate requirement education.’” Ibid. See contend 2d, also 632 F. at 947. Petitioners that the defini- phrase appropriate public “free tion of the education” used phrase the courts below overlooks the definition of that actually Respondents agree found in the Act. that the Act public defines “free education,” but contend statutory definition is not “functional” and thus judges guidance “offers no in their of con- consideration involving troversies ‘the identification, evaluation, educa- placement provision appro- tional of the child or the a free public priate Respondents education.’” Brief for 28. The appearing United States, as amicus curiae behalf of respondents, “[ajlthough states that the Act includes defini- appropriate public tions of a ‘free education’ and other related statutory adequately explain terms, definitions do not ” by ‘appropriate.’ what is meant Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13. any
We are loath to conclude that failed to offer defining meaning principal assistance in substan- phrase beyond dispute tive used the Act. con- that, It is trary to the conclusions of the Act does below, the courts expressly appropriate define “free education”: nine months complete, pre- during mention the time consumed ceding state correctly hearings. administrative The District Court thus ruled it jurisdiction alleged retained defi- grant relief because ciencies in capable yet the IEP it parties were of repetition as to the before Hunt, (1980). evading Murphy Supp. 536, review. 483 F. v. See (1975). (1982); U. S. Bradford, Weinstein v. 147, 149 423 U. S. *11 public spe- appropriate means education’
“The term ‘free (A) services have been related cial education and public supervision public expense, and provided under (B) charge, meet the standards direction, and without (C) appropriate agency, include an educational the State secondary elementary, in preschool, or school education (D) conformity provided in are involved, and the State program required un- the individualized education 1401(18) 1414(a)(5) § (emphasis of this title.” der section added). “Special in means definition, as referred to this education,” parents designed “specially at no cost to instruction, unique guardians, child, meet the needs of a physical including ed- instruction, instruction classroom hospitals and and instruction in instruction, home ucation, §1401(16). are defined “Related services” institutions.” developmental, “transportation, corrective, and and such as may required supportive as- services ... as be other special handicapped child education.” to benefit sist §1401(17).10 many statutory this one tends toward definitions,
Like scarcely comprehensive, cryptic that is than the but rather abandoning quest legislative for intent. for reason re- one, a “functional” not the definition is Whether or principal spondents it it is the tool which Con- not, contend is phrase gress given parsing of the Act. for the critical has us respondents or either must made of it than We think more willing States seems admit. the United According a “free Act, definitions contained to the of educational instruc- education” consists unique specially designed the handi- to meet the needs of tion pathol “speech Examples “related services” identified the Act services, occupational ther psychological physical and ogy audiology, and services, except recreation, counseling that such apy, medical and purposes only.” diagnostic and evaluation medical services shall be 1401(17). capped supported by necessary child, such services as are permit the child “to benefit” from the instruction. Almost as adequacy a checklist under the also re- definition quires provided pub- that such instruction and services be expense public supervision, and under lic meet the State’s approximate grade standards, levels used regular comport the State’s education, with the child’s personalized provided being if Thus, IEP. instruction is supportive permit with sufficient services the child to ben- efit from instruction, other items defini- *12 receiving tional checklist are satisfied, the child is a “free appropriate public by education” as defined the Act. portions light upon congres-
Other of the statute also shed roughly eight sional intent. found that of mil- handicapped lion children in the United States at the of time entirely enactment, one million were “excluded from the public system” receiving school and more than half were an inappropriate following education. 774, 89 Stat. note 1401. In requires as mentioned in addition, Part I, the Act States to extend educational services first to those children who are receiving no education and second to those children who are §1412(3). receiving “inadequate an education.” When express statutory findings priorities these are read to- gether procedural requirements with the Act’s extensive appropriate public of its definition “free education,” the face congressional bring previ- of the statute evinces a intent to ously handicapped public excluded children into the education systems require adopt pro- and to States the States to cedures which would result individualized consideration of instruction each child. Noticeably any language absent from the of the statute is prescribing substantive standard the level of education to be Certainly language accorded children. requirement imposed the statute contains no like the one potential the lower courts—that maximize opportunity children “commensurate with the F. at 534. That Supp., children.” other provided without refer- the District Court expounded was standard his- legislative or even to definitions statutory to the ence definition of statutory find the we Although the Act. tory be in our inter- education” to helpful “free appropriate remains the of whether question there pretation intent congressional indicates a history the legislative substantive standard. meet some additional such history.11 we turn answer, For an of the courts below . . . dissent, finding that “the standard seems Act, post, purpose” of the concludes that congressional to reflect Post, satisfactory one.” at 216. not a Pre question “is our answer this agrees Court’s conclusion that with the District sumably, dissent also entirely hearing give officers to con to the courts and the been left “it has Supp., 483 F. ‘appropriate of an education.’” requirement tent to give the courts carte blanche to that the dissent would It thus seems judgments indicate upon whatever burden their various impose the States Indeed, clearly require characterizes the imposed. the dissent should be noting “if open-ended, there are “appropriate an education” ment of may on what be considered limits not evident from face the statute the statute education,’ they purpose must found ‘appropriate *13 history.” Post, only we to find legislative or its at 213. Not unable requirement of an any suggestion from the face of the statute that limitless, the dissent’s “appropriate education” was to be but we also view contrary Congress, when approach proposition to the fundamental power, upon its unless exercising spending impose can no burden unambiguously. infra, 204, it does so n. 26. See Congress No if one can doubt that this case would have been an easier provide statutory fit of comprehensive had seen a more definition so, phrase appropriate “free not do public Congress did education.” But all, problem After Congress “our is to construe has written. what Congress expresses purpose by its It for us to ascertain —nei- words. is subtract, ther 62 Cases to add nor to nor to neither to delete distort.” of (1951). than States, Jam be less 593, v. United 340 U. would S. We if in this obligation Congress faithful to our written has construe what history legislative of disregard statutory language case we were to by concluding the Act a burden imposed upon the States had through case-by- unspecified proportions only weight, to be revealed adjudication case in the courts.
B (i) federal for I, support in Part education of the As suggested development. recent fairly is a Before handicapped passage had laws to passed the Act some States the educa- improve handicapped children,12 services afforded but many tional were excluded from completely any these children form of or were left to fend for in education themselves class- of their designed nonhandicapped rooms peers. the House noted, Report begins by As previously emphasizing and misplacement, noting this exclusion that millions of handi- “were either capped totally children excluded schools or in sitting idly classrooms regular awaiting [were] the time when were old out.’” H. R. they enough ‘drop at 2. Rep., at 8. See also S. One of the Act’s two Rep., principal spon- its urged sors the Senate similar passage terms:
“While much has been progress made the last few we no years, can take solace in that until progress all handicapped are, fact, children an receiving education. The most recent provided statistics Bureau of Education . . Handicapped estimate that . 1.75 million do not any receive educa- tional services, and 2.5 million children are receiving education.” Cong. (1975) (remarks Rec. 19486 Williams). of Sen.
This concern, stressed legisla- repeatedly throughout tive history,13 confirms the by the lan- impression conveyed 12See H. Rep., Note, R. 10; Handicapped The Education All Chil 1975, dren (1976). 10 U. Mich. J. L. Ref. 13See, g., e. (1975) (remarks 121 Cong. Javits) (“all Rec. 19494 too Sen. often, our handicapped opportunity citizens have been denied the re id., Cranston) ceive an adequate (remarks education”); at 19502 of Sen. *14 (millions of handicapped largely “children . . . are excluded from the edu opportunities cational id., give that we children”); to our other at 23708 (remarks Mink) Rep. of (“handicapped . children . . are denied access to public schools because of a lack of personnel”). trained 192 the Act, Congress sought By of the statute: passing
guage to available handicapped make education public to primarily access to public in such seeking provide But children. any impose upon did education, Congress nec- than would educational standard substantive greater Indeed, Congress meaningful. make such access essary of instances process “recognize[d] many expressly to handi- and related services education special providing any to produce particular children is not guaranteed capped of Act was Thus, the intent S. Rep., outcome.” chil- of education to public handicapped the door open more any than to guarantee particular terms dren on appropriate once inside. level of education im attribute the and the Senate Reports
Both the House and its to two federal-court predecessors the Act petus for Re 1972. As the Senate rendered 1971 and judgments a series of land the Act “followed states, passage port to education law the establishing right mark court cases The first children.” S. at 6.14 Rep., all handicapped for Pennsylvania Com Assn. Retarded Children v. case, 1971) monwealth, 334 F. (ED Pa. and 343 1257 Supp. (PARC), (1972) was a suit on behalf retarded F. 279 Supp. of a constitutionality Pennsylvania children challenging acted to exclude them statute which in a which en The case ended consent decree training. mentally retarded any the State from joined “denying] access train a free of education and public program child added). F. at 1258 Supp., (emphasis ing.” Mills v. Board Education PARC was followed by Columbia, (DC District F. case Supp. 1972), children excluded had been the plaintiff handicapped “[ijncreased it aware Similarly, Report states that was the Senate children and landmark court ness of the educational needs establishing right [that] to education decisions necessity expanded Rep., role.” at 5. pointed of an federal fiscal S. Rep., H. R. at 2-3. See also
193 from the District of Columbia public schools. court’s judgment, S. at quoted 6, provided that Rep., “no [handicapped] eligible child for a publicly supported the District of Columbia schools shall be excluded from a school regular assignment aby Rule, or policy, practice Board of Education of the Dis- trict of Columbia or its unless such child agents is pro- (a) vided adequate alternative educational services suited needs, child’s include may special (b) education or tuition grants, a constitutionally ad- equate prior hearing periodic review of the child’s status, and the progress, educational adequacy any al- added). ternative.” 348 F. at 878 Supp., (emphasis Mills and PARC both held that handicapped must given access to an adequate, publicly education. supported Neither case purports require any particular substantive level of education.15 Rather, like the language only
15 The implied substantive standard which can be from these cases comports implicit with the standard in the Act. PARC states that each child must public program receive “access to free of education and train ing appropriate learning capacities,” to his Supp., (empha F. at 1258 added), sis and that further state action required appears is when it mentally being “the needs of the retarded child adequately served,” are not added.) id., (Emphasis at 1266. speaks Mills also of “adequate” terms services, Supp., educational F. at and sets a realistic standard of providing some every educational services to each child when need cannot be met.
“If sufficient funds are not all pro- available to finance services and grams system that are needed and desirable then the available funds expended entirely equitably must be in such a manner that no child is ex- publicly supported cluded from education consistent with his needs and ability inadequacies to benefit therefrom. The of the District of Columbia System funding Public School whether occasioned or insufficient admin- certainly inefficiency, permitted heavily istrative cannot be to bear more ‘exceptional’ Id., child than on the normal child.” at 876. in for- to be followed procedures extensive forth set cases for programs
mulating personalized F. 878-883; Supp., Supp., F. *16 848 See children. and Mills are dis- PARC that both fact The 1258-1267.16 that the Reports17 suggests the legislative at length cussed which, to the principles are established they which principles the Act. Indeed, drafters of the extent, guided a significant the Senate Report cases these discussing after immediately the “incorporated having major statute the 1974 describes cases.” S. at 8. Rep., to the right of principles of the Act, the basis which became turn Those principles of purposes the the to effectuate designed was itself 5.18 R. Rep., H. statute. “identify, locate, PARC Act, required [and] the eval State Like the children, 1267, Supp., at to create for each child handicapped 334 F.
uate” id., 1265, hearing a “on program, and to hold an individual educational id., at 1266. Mills also required assignment,” any change in educational program child. In ad an individual educational for each preparation of parents Mills dition, permitted inspect the child’s records relevant education, independent to obtain an educational evaluation the child’s child, object hearing independent IEP an to the and receive before officer, by hearing, to have hearing represented to be counsel at the and right witnesses, and cross-examine all of which are confront adverse Act, Mills permitted by Supp., also the Act. 348 F. at 879-881. Like the handicapped pur that required also the education of children be conducted plan prepared Columbia, suant to an overall estab District of policy educating handicapped nonhandicapped lished a chil children with Ibid. possible. dren whenever 6-7; Rep., at H. Rep.,
17 SeeS. R. at 3-4. “incorporated major right 18 The statute principles edu cases,” by “add[ing] important cation provisions to the Education new Handicapped require goal pro to: establish States viding children; full opportunities provide educational handicapped to all procedures for insuring parents handicapped children and their guardians guaranteed are procedural safeguards regarding in decisions identification, evaluation, placement handicapped chil educational dren; procedures that, establish appropri to insure to the maximum extent ate, handicapped children ... children who are not educated with handicapped;. and, . . procedures testing establish eval to insure that uation procedures materials and purposes utilized for the of classification clear obligation upon recipient the Act no imposes
That children re- beyond requirement education is best perhaps form of dem- specialized ceive some the fact that the need Congress, explaining onstrated an education” to the re- equated “appropriate services. some specialized Senate ceipt most recent statistics provided by states: Report “[T]he for the Handicapped Bureau of Education estimate that of . . . 8 million children condi- handicapping the more than related services, tions education and requiring special only an 3.9 million such children are educa- receiving appropriate This statement, S. at 8.19 which reveals Rep., tion.” Con- view 3.9 million were “re- gress’ education” is ceiving followed *17 in the Senate a table immediately Report by that 3.9 showing million in children were “served” 1975 handicapped number were A “unserved.” similar slightly larger state- ment and in table the House H. R. appear Report. at Rep., 11-12. placement handicapped of children will be so selected and administered racially
as not to be culturally discriminatory.” Rep., at S. 8. Report explains House simply incorporated that the Act pur- these poses of the 1974 statute: the “primarily Act was intended to amend . . . the Education Handicapped of the permanent Act in au- provide order to comprehensive thorization and a mechanism which will insure that those provisions during enacted 93rd result [the statute] 1974 will in maximum benefits for handicapped children and R. their families.” H. Rep., Thus, at 5. the 1974 purpose statute’s providing handicapped of children access to a purpose education became the of the Act. 19 These appear statistics repeatedly throughout legislative history of demonstrating a virtual among legislators consensus 3.9 mil handicapped lion children were receiving education See, g., e. Cong. (1975) (remarks 121 Rec. Williams); id., 19486 at of Sen. (remarks 19504 of Schweicker); id., (remarks Sen. Rep. at 23702 of Mad ibid, (remarks den); Rep. Brademas); (remarks id., Rep. at 23709 (remarks Minish); id., (remarks at 37024 id., Rep. Brademas); at 37027 Rep. Gude); id., (remarks (remarks id., 37417 Javits); of Sen. at 37420 Hathaway). Sen. 196 the charac history the legislative
It is evident “served” referred children as of terization educa of specialized some form receiving children were who the characterization and that States, from the tional services were receiv to those who referred of children as “unserved” a let For example, services. educational no ing specialized of Education Commissioner sent to the United States ter Labor, signed on Education the House Committee asked the Com House, of the key sponsors two “children the number of identify missioner to on the The letter asked for statistics in each State. served” of “special served” various “being types of children number of children who were and the number program[s]” 6 be services.” on S. “receiving Hearings educational of the Senate Handicapped fore the Subcommittee on 94th Cong., and Public 1st Welfare, on Labor Committee (1975). one Randolph, Senator Sess., Similarly, 205-207 Senate, in the noted that roughly principal sponsors Act’s the United States of the handicapped one-half Id., 1.20 services.” By educational receiving “are special school-aged “[0]nly percent of the handi Randolph stated: Senator pre-school-aged handicapped children capped percent children and Hearings S. 6 receiving special services.” before the Handicapped of the Senate Committee on Labor and on the Subcommittee (1975). Sess., Although Welfare, Cong., figures 1st dif 94th Public *18 history, general parts legislative in of the thrust of slightly various fer roughly handicapped that one-half of the congressional calculations was receiving specialized were children in the United States educational services, See, g., Cong. were not “served.” e. 121 Rec. 19494 and thus Javits) (remarks (1975) (“only percent 50 of the handi of Sen. Nation’s (re services”); id., proper education at 19504 capped children received (“[a]lmost children, handicapped Humphrey) 3 million while marks Sen. they school, require that in special receive none of the services order to in (remarks id., meaningful experience”); Rep. a at 23706 make receiving (“only percent handicapped [of children] were Quie) 55 (“[o]ver (remarks id., Biaggi) 3 education”); Rep. [handi- million at 23709
197 the 3.9 million characterizing children who were handicapped “served” as who children were an edu- “receiving appropriate cation,” Senate House Reports disclose unmistakably of the Congress’ perception of education type required by Act: an education” “appropriate is provided personal- when ized educational services are provided.21 capped] country children in this receiving par either below education or all”). none at Statements appearing text, similar to those in equate which “served” appears it Report in the “receiving special Senate educational serv- ices,” appear throughout legislative See, id., history. g., e. at 19492 (remarks id., (remarks Williams); id., of Sen. Javits); at 19494 of Sen. at (remarks id., (remarks Stone); 19496 of Sen. at 19504-19505 of Sen. Hum- (remarks id., phrey); at Rep. Brademas); Hearings on H. R. 7217 before the Subcommittee on Select Education of the House on Committee Labor, Sess., 91, 150, Education and Cong., (1975); 94th 1st Hearings on H. R. 4199 before the on Select Subcommittee Education of the House (1973). Labor, Sess., 130, Cong., Committee Education and 93d 1st (1981). §300.343 also See 34 CFR 21 seeking In language legislative read more into the Act than its or history permit, upon will the United focuses “appropri the word ate,” arguing statutory that “the definitions not adequately explain do what [it means].” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13. What education, Congress “appropriate” ever an meant it is clear that it did potential-maximizing not mean a education. educating
The term handicapped appears as used reference to originated decision, have where the District required PARC Court handicapped provided training appro- children be with “education and priate learning capacities.” Supp., [their] 334 F. at 1258. The word decision, appears again point in the Mills the District Court at one refer- ring “an program,” to the need for F. Supp., point speaking at publicly-supported another of “suitable edu- id., cation,” at 878. Both cases refer to need for “adequate” also Supp., 1266; Supp., F. education. See 334 348 F. at 878. “appropriate” language although by The use in the no definitive, suggests means used the word as much to de- settings scribe the children should be educated as to prescribe supportive the substantive content services of their education. 1412(5) example, requires For children be educated nonhandicapped appro- “to the classrooms maximum extent
(Ü) provide goal Act is of the “the that Respondents contend opportu- equal educational an handicapped child each think, however, Respondents 35. We nity.” Brief for specialized provide educational requirement that a State generates re- no additional handicapped children services provided maxi- be sufficient to so services quirement opportu- with the potential “commensurate child’s mize each Respondents and the United nity provided children.” other sought provide Congress “to assist- correctly note States carrying responsibilities their under out ance to provide equal of the United States . . . Constitution Rep., at 13.22 But we do not protection laws.” S. congressional imply a intent statements such think that opportunity equality or services. achieve strict provided opportunities our The educational undoubtedly systems student, differ student school par- might myriad depending upon a of factors that affect ability presented in information to assimilate ticular student’s provide “equal” requirement The that States the classroom. present opportunities an would thus seem entirely requiring impossible measure- unworkable standard comparisons. Similarly, furnishing handicapped ments and only children with such services to nonhandi- as available §1401(19) priate.” Similarly, that, appropriate,” provides “whenever handicapped meeting children which participate should attend in the IEP addition, appropriate public their is drafted. In of “free definition education” itself states that should given instruction “appropriate be at secondary preschool, elementary, or school” level. 1401(18)(C). to re- “appropriate" Act’s use of the word thus seems Congress’ flect recognition that suitable envi- settings simply some are not ronments for participation very At the some children. least, statutory these uses of the contention that word refute the “appropriate” used concisely expresses term of art the standard found the lower courts. Williams); id., (1975) (remarks See 121 Cong. also Rec. 19492 of Sen. (remarks Humphrey). Sen.
199 capped probability in children would all fall short of the statu- tory requirement appropriate public of “free education”; require, furnishing every special hand, on the other necessary po- service to maximize each child’s go. is, think, we tential further than intended to speak “equal” Thus to terms of services in one instance by gives required than is less what the Act and in another instance more. The theme of the Act is “free public phrase complex cap- which is too education,” to be by “equal” speaking oppor- tured the word whether one is tunities services. legislative conception requirements equal pro-
The undoubtedly was tection informed the two District Court decisions referred to above. But cases such as Mills and simply may PARC held ex- not be entirely public cluded from education. In Mills, the District Court said:
“If sufficient funds are not available to finance all of programs services and that are needed and desirable system expended then the available funds must be equitably entirely such manner no ex- child is publicly supported cluded from a education consistent ability with his needs and F. to benefit therefrom.” 348 Supp., at 876. language, saying
The “[i]t PARC court used similar is obligation place mentally commonwealth’s each retarded public program training ap- child in a free, of education and propriate Supp., capacity to child’s . . .” 334 F. . right of access to free education enunciated significantly any these cases is of ab- different notion equality opportunity solute regardless capacity. theTo Congress might extent these have looked further than history, legislative cases which are mentioned time of enactment of at least the Act this had held Court Equal twice that the Protection the Fourteenth Clause of 200 equal expend require finan
Amendment does Antonio of each child. San the education cial resources on (1973); Rodriguez, Independent 411 U. S. Dist. v. School (ND 1968), Supp. Shapiro, aff’d F. Ill. McInnis v. (1969). Ogilvie, 394 U. v. S. sub nom. McInnis legislation, explaining the House for federal In the need required congressional legislation Report has “no noted that *21 handicapped guarantee precise children, i. e. a basic bring compliance opportunity all into that would floor of right equal protec- with constitutional school districts Rep., respect handicapped R. to children.” H. tion with designed Assuming fill to the need that the Act was Report provide in a “basic is, the House to identified —that equal protection opportunity” floor of consistent with —nei- history persuasively the Act nor its demonstrates that ther anything Congress thought equal protection required that Congress’ pro- equal to desire Therefore, more than access. specialized services, furtherance vide even any particular “equality,” imposing cannot sub- be read as upon the stantive educational standard States. Appeals erred thus
The District Court and the Court of they requires maximize the Act New York to when held that potential handicapped each child commensurate provided opportunity nonhandicapped children. Desir- goal might though it is not the standard that be, able that Congress imposed upon funding under which receive identify Congress sought primarily Rather, to the Act. handicapped provide to them with ac- children, evaluate public a free cess to education.
(iii) congressional purpose providing Implicit in the access public requirement a “free education” is the provided sufficient to con- the education to which access is be handicapped upon the child. It fer some educational benefit spend good little millions of dollars would do public only providing access to a have child receive no handicapped benefit from that education. The statutory definition of “free educa- appropriate public tion,” addition to that States each child requiring provide with “specially designed instruction,” expressly requires of “such . . . provision supportive services ... may child to assist required handicapped spe- benefit 1401(17) added). cial education.” We therefore (emphasis conclude that the “basic floor of opportunity” provided by consists access to instruction and specialized related services are individually designed provide educa- tional benefit to the child.23 handicapped supported by This view is congressional intention, frequently ex pressed legislative history, children be enabled degree self-sufficiency. achieve a referring reasonable After to statis showing many tics children were excluded from education, Report the Senate states: long range implications
“The public agencies of these statistics are that taxpayers spend will billions of dollars over the lifetimes of these indi- *22 persons viduals maintain such dependents minimally accept- as in a lifestyle. proper services, able With many would be able to be- productive citizens, come contributing society being instead of forced to Others, through services, remain burdens. such would their in- increase dependence, reducing dependence society.” thus their Rep., on S. at 9. Rep., Similarly, See also H. R. at 11. principal sponsors one of the Senate “providing appropriate of the Act stated that educational services now many means that of these will contributing individuals be able to become a part society, they our will depend pay- of not have subsistence (1975) (remarks public Cong. ments from funds.” 121 Rec. 19492 of Sen. Williams). id., (remarks Harkin); id., Rep. See also at 25541 of (remarks (remarks Brademas); id., Rep. 37024-37025 of Rep. at 37027 of (remarks Gude); (remarks id., Randolph); id., at 37410 of Sen. at 37416 of Williams). Sen. provide handicapped
The desire to degree children with an attainable personal obviously anticipated independence pro- that state educational grams upon would confer educational benefits such children. But at the time, goal achieving self-sufficiency same degree some in most good goal cases is a deal more than potential-maximizing modest adopted by the lower courts.
Despite mention, frequent conclude, its we cannot did the dissent Appeals, self-sufficiency the Court of was itself the substantive stand- handicapped children are re- of when determination satisfy require- ceiving benefits educational sufficient problem. presents The Act difficult more the Act ments of spectrum a wide participating to educate requires States hearing-impaired marginally handicapped from the children, palsied. It is clear that the profoundly retarded to the spectrum by at one end of the children obtainable benefits dramatically from those obtainable will*differ in successfully One child infinite variations between. end, with the other may difficulty competing an aca- have little nonhandicapped setting children while another with demic difficulty acquiring great may even the encounter child attempt do to- skills. We of self-maintenance most basic determining adequacy any day one test establish upon conferred all children covered benefits presented a handi- in this case we are the Act. Because receiving specialized capped instruc- substantial child who is performing aver- services, and who is above and related tion system, age regular we classrooms of school analysis our to that situation. confine requires participating to educate handi-
The Act pos- nonhandicapped capped children whenever children with preference “mainstreaming” sible.24 When that mildly Congress imposed many upon ard the States. Because self-sufficiency state assistance children will achieve without may an un- personal independence severely while goal, an in- “self-sufficiency” at once reachable as a substantive standard is adequate protection overly thus view demanding and an We requirement. legislative history Congress’ these references in inten- as evidence *23 educationally provided tion that the bene- handicapped services be children ficial, severity handicap. whatever the nature or of their 1412(5) 24 Title20 establish U. S. C. requires participating “procedures that, handi appropriate, assure to the maximum extent capped children, including or other public private children in institutions facilities, handicapped, care and are with educated children who are not classes, handicapped special separate schooling, or other removal of regular only from when the children the educational environment occurs being regular is in has been met and a child educated the system, system public of a school itself classrooms moni- progress Regular of the child. tors examina- grades yearly administered, are awarded, tions are ad- grade permitted higher is levels vancement to for those adequate knowledge children who attain the course ma- system grading and advancement terial. thus consti- important determining tutes an factor educational benefit. graduate public systems from our who Children school are society our to have been considered “educated” at least to they completed, grade have level and access to an “edu- precisely is cation” for what sought provide in the Act.25
C language legislative history of Act When and its together, requirements imposed by Congress considered tolerably required pro- become clear. Insofar aas State is appropriate public a vide child with “free edu- requirement by provid- it cation,” we hold that satisfies this personalized ing support instruction with sufficient services permit educationally the child to benefit from that instruc- provided pub- tion. Such instruction and services must be expense, lic must meet the State’s educational standards, approximate grade regular must levels used the State’s comport education, and must child’sIEP. In addi- personalized tion, the IEP, and therefore the instruction, requirements should be formulated in accordance with the severity nature or handicap regular is such classes that education with the use of supplementary be achieved aids services cannot satisfactorily.” 25We do today not hold advancing every who is handicapped child grade grade regular automatically re system school is ceiving a appropriate public “free case, however, we education.” In this Amy’s find academic progress, services special when considered with professional consideration ad accorded Furnace Woods school ministrators, dispositive. *24 204 in the class- is educated regular if the child and, being
the Act reasonably should be system, of the rooms marks and child to achieve passing to enable the calculated grade.26 to grade advance
IV
A permits “[a]ny party ag- in Part the Act I, As mentioned decision” of the state adminis- findings grieved State court of “any “to a civil action” trative hearings bring of the or a district court United competent jurisdiction in controversy.” to the amount regard without States 1415(e)(2). action, the civil and therefore complaint, eval- identification, to the relating matter may “any concern or the child, provi- uation, placement Ap the District Court and the Court defending In the decisions of upon rely isolated statements peals, respondents and the United States concerning potential, of maximum history the achievement legislative Congress in Rep., 13, support for their contention that R. as see H. requirements than we have found. impose greater substantive tended however, inter statements, are thin a reed on which base an These too language and the balance of pretation disregards the Act both its phrases history. “Passing references and isolated legislative its history.” Department v. controlling analyzing legislative State when (1982). Washington Co., Post 456 U. S. a con- Moreover, agree we that these statements evince even were potential, we not hold that gressional intent to maximize each child’s could imposed Congress successfully upon the States. had burden power pursuant spending is much in the na- “[L]egislation enacted funds, agree comply federal the States ture a contract: in return for legitimacy Congress’ power federally imposed conditions. The power thus rests on whether the State volun- legislate spending under the Accordingly, . . terms of the ‘contract.’. tarily knowingly accepts the grant moneys, federal it impose a condition on the Congress if intends to Halderman, 451 unambiguously.” Pennhurst State School v. must do so (footnote omitted). (1981) 1, U. S. history requirements already demonstrated, impose and its no As imposed by and the Court of like those the District Comb unambiguously, required Appeals. A has not done so fortiori power. spending valid exercise of its *25 sion of a free public education to such child.” §1415(b)(1)(E). In reviewing complaint, the pro- the Act vides that a court “shall receive the record of [state] the proceedings, administrative shall hear additional evidence at request the party, of a basing and, its prepon- decision on the derance of the grant evidence, shall such relief as the court appropriate.” § determines is 1415(e)(2). parties disagree sharply over meaning the of these
provisions, petitioners contending that given only courts are authority limited to review for compliance state with the procedural Act’s requirements power and no to review the substance of the program, state respondents contending that requires the Act courts to exercise de novo review over state educational policies. decisions and petitioners’ We find unpersuasive, contention Congress expressly rejected provisions that would severely have so restricted the role of reviewing courts. substituting In the language current the statute language that would have made state adminis- findings trative supported conclusive if by substantial evi- dence, the Conference explained Committee that courts were “independent to make decisions] preponderance based on a of the evidence.” Rep. S. Conf. p. (1975). No. 94-455, See Cong. also 121 (remarks (1975) Rec. 37416 of Sen. Williams). although
But grant we find that this of authority is broader than petitioners, claimed we think the fact that it is found §in which is entitled safeguards,” “Procedural is not significance. without When the highly specific elaborate and procedural safeguards §in embodied 1415are contrasted with general the imprecise and somewhat substantive admonitions contained the Act, we think importance that the Congress procedural attached to these safeguards gainsaid. cannot be It seems to exaggeration us no say placed that every emphasis bit as much upon compliance procedures giving parents guardians large participation measure of every stage process, administrative g., see, e. §§1415(a)-(d), upon as it did the measurement of the result- that thinkWe standard. against a substantive ing IEP concerned participation upon full emphasis congressional as well IEP, development of throughout the parties plans submitted local state requirements legislative con- approval, demonstrates Secretary for pre- procedures compliance with adequate viction what if not all much assure cases most would scribed IEP. anin content way of substantive in the Congress wished decision reviewing its base court provision Thus in- means is no evidence” “preponderance of sound notions own their substitute the courts vitation authorities school *26 those policy for educational Congress has importance which very they review. prep- in the procedures certain compliance with to attached per- were court if a frustrated be IEP would anof aration that fact nought. The decisions simply state set mitted rec- reviewing “receive court 1415(e) that the requires § with carries proceedings” [state] administrative ords given weight be shall due requirement that implied it nothing Act in the find And we proceedings. these sketchy rather Congress was merely because suggest that pro- opposed to requirements, as establishing substantive in- it IEP, of an preparation requirements for cedural hand free have reviewing should courts tended be de- cannot which review standards impose substantive statutory authoriza- short, In itself. the Act rived appropri- is determines the court grant relief “such tion to obligations, reference without read cannot ate” recipi- upon imposed are nature, procedural largely Congress. by ent States brought under inquiry suits court’s Therefore, complied with 1415(e)(2) State has the First, is twofold. is the second, And Act?27 in the forth procedures set State satisfy itself only to a court not require will inquiry This by the required assurances and plan, policies, adopted the state has program
individualized developed educational through the procedures Act’s reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits?28 If requirements these complied met, the State obligations has imposed Congress require courts can no more.
B
assuring
In
requirements
that the
of the Act have been
met, courts must be careful to
imposing
avoid
their view of
preferable
upon
educational methods
pri-
States.29 The
mary responsibility
formulating
the education to be ac-
corded a
choosing
child, and for
the educational
method most
suitable
the child’s
needs, was left
the Act
to state
agencies
and local educational
cooperation
with the
parents
guardian
of the child. The
expressly
charges
responsibility
with the
of “acquiring and disseminating
to teachers and
programs
administrators of
significant
information derived from educational re-
search, demonstration, and
projects,
similar
[of] adopt-
ing,
appropriate,
where
promising
practices
§1413(a)(3).
materials.”
In the face of such a clear statu-
tory directive, it
highly
seems
unlikely
in-
*27
but also to determine that
the State has created an IEP for the child in
question which conforms with the requirements
1401(19).
§of
28 When the handicapped child is being educated in
regular
the
class
rooms of a public
system,
school
the achievement of passing marks and ad
vancement from grade
grade
to
will be one important
factor
determining
educational benefit. See
supra.
III,
Part
29In this ease, for example, both the state hearing officer and the District
Court
presented
were
with evidence
toas
the best method for educating
the deaf,
question
long debated among
Large,
scholars.
Special
See
Problems of the Deaf Under the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act
1975,
of
58 Wash. U.
Q.
L.
(1980).
The District Court ac
cepted the testimony of respondents’ experts that there was
sup
“a trend
ported by studies showing the greater degree of success of students
brought up in deaf households using [the method of communication used by
the Rowleys].”
tended to pursuant conducted in a proceeding theories educational 1415(e)(2).30 “special- the lack courts that cautioned have previously We “persist- to resolve necessary experience” and knowledge ized An- San policy.” educational of questions difficult and ent Rodriguez, 411 U. at S., Dist. v. Independent School tonio it passed when view that shared Congress that thinkWe was intention Congress’ demonstrated, already As Act. the field in the of States the primacy displace Act that the not them assist funds receive that States but education, handicapped. systems educational their extending requirements determines court once a Therefore, for methodology met, questions been have the States. resolution
V agen- local and to state education child’s Entrusting Congress protection. without child leave does cies paren- by providing children individual protect sought poli- and plans state development involvement tal formulation in the 6,n. and supra, 182-183, and cies, Re- As Senate program. educational individual child’s states: port instances many recognizes Committee “The serv- related special of providing process pro- is not guaranteed
ices language changing By outcome. any particular duce to individualized relating provision [of child of parent the process emphasize programs] in the role traditional the States’ aware was is clear It “Historically, the States policy. of educational execution formulation the ele of children the education responsibility primary had have (remarks (1975) Rec. 19498 Cong. secondary level.” mentary and (1968) (“By 97, 104 Arkansas, 898 U. S. v. Epperson Dole). *28 also See Sen. control is committed Nation our public education large, authorities”). and local state involvement and to provide a written record of reason- able expectations, the Committee intends to clarify that such individualized planning conferences are a way provide parent involvement and protection to assure that appropriate services are provided to a handicapped child.” S. Rep., at 11-12.
See also S. Conf. Rep. No. 94-445, p. 30 (1975); 34 CFR §300.345 (1981). As this very case demonstrates, parents and guardians will not lack ardor in seeking to ensure that handicapped children receive all of the benefits to which they are entitled by the Act.31
VI Applying these principles to the facts of this case, we con- clude that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the deci- sion of the District Court. Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals found that petitioners had failed to com- ply with the procedures of the Act, and the findings of nei- ther court would support a conclusion that Amy’s educational program failed to comply with the substantive requirements of the Act. On the contrary, the District Court found that the “evidence firmly establishes that Amy is receiving 31In addition to providing for parental extensive involvement in the for mulation of state and local policies, as well as the preparation of individual educational programs, the Act ensures that States will receive the advice of experts in the field of educating handicapped children. As a condition for receiving federal funds under States must “an create advisory panel, appointed by the Governor or any other official authorized under State law to make such appointments, composed of individuals involved in or concerned with the education of handicapped children, including handi capped individuals, teachers, parents guardians of handicapped chil dren, State and local officials, and administrators of programs for handicapped children, (A) advises the State educational agency of unmet needs within the State in the education of handicapped children, (B) [and] comments publicly on any rules or regulations proposed for is suance the State regarding the education of handicapped children.” 1413(a)(12). *29 av- the than better performs she since education, ‘adequate’ to grade easily advancing is and class her child erage of and finding, this of light In at Supp., F. 483 grade.” instruction personalized receiving was Amy that fact the ad- school Woods Furnace the calculated services related courts the lower needs, her meet to ministrators the provision requires Act the that concluded have should decision the Accordingly, interpreter. sign-language of a remanded is case the reversed, is Appeals Court the opinion.32 this with consistent proceedings further ordered. So judgment. in the concurring Blackmun, Justice to- does Court result same I reach Although Education goals history and legislative read I day, unambigu- differently. Handicapped under role more active “take to it intended that stated ously guarantee to laws protection equal its responsibility op- equal educational are provided added). (1975) (emphasis 94r-168,p. No. portunity.” S. Rep. estab- 1412(2)(A)(i) (requiring §C. U. S. also See opportu- full educational providing “goal with lish plans children”). to all nity me plain seems before, “[i]t observed I have As than more do statute], intended [this enacting Congress, mean- essentially but self-serving politically set out merely deserve [handicapped] what about language ingless School v. State Pennhurst . authorities.” . . of state hands in part concurring (1981) (opinion Halderman, 451 U. S. legislative clarity in judgment). concurring contention respondents’ reach Court declined the District 32 Because require procedural Act’s comply with had failed petitioners must case 8, the 533, n. Supp., at IEP, F. Amy’s developing ments opinion. this proceedings consistent for further be remanded intent question convinces me that the relevant here is not, as says, Amy Rowley’s the Court whether individualized educa- program “reasonably tion was calculated to [her] enable receive educational benefits,” ante, part 207, measured in *30 or passing “achieve[s] whether not she marks and ad- vance^] grade grade,” ante, at 204. Rather, the question Amy’s program, is whether viewed as a whole, of- opportunity fered her an participate understand and in the substantially equal classroom that given was to that her non- handicapped classmates. predicated This is a standard on equal opportunity equal and access to the educa- process, tional upon Amy’s rather than any achievement of particular educational outcome. answering
In question, this I believe that the District Court Appeals and the Court of given should greater have they deference than findings did to the of the School Dis- impartial trict’s hearing officer and the State’s Commissioner of Education, both of petitioners’ whom sustained refusal to sign-language add a interpreter Amy’s individualized edu- program. cation 1415(e)(2) Cf. 20 U. S. C. (requiring re- viewing court to “receive the records of the administrative proceedings” relief). granting before suggest I would fur- ther that those courts narrowly focused too presence on particular absence of sign-language service—a inter- preter than on the package total —rather fur- services Amy nished the School Board.
As the Court demonstrates, petitioner ante, at 184-185, provided Board has Amy Rowley considerably more than “a teacher with a loud post, voice.” See opin- (dissenting ion). By concentrating Amy “learning whether was as or performing much, academically, well as she with- would out handicap,” her (SDNY Supp. F. 1980), 528, District Court and the Appeals paid Court of too little attention to whether, on the respondent’s entire record, indi- vidualized program offered her op- an educational nonhandi- her provided equal substantially portunity has standard I believe Because capped classmates. Court judgment of agree that I here, satisfied been reversed. Appeals should Jus- Brennan Justice whom White,
Justice dissenting. join, Marshall tice opin- majority case, this result its reach In order statute, language itself, contradicts ion “free for a standard majority’s history. Both legislative judicial review standard its education” appropriate intent. congressional disregard HH meaning aof to the attention its turns majority first The provides: public education.”
“free *31 means public education’ appropriate ‘free term “The (A) have which services related and special education super- public under expense, at provided been (B) charge, meet without and direction, and vision (C) in- agency, educational the State of standards the elementary, or second- preschool, clude (D) are and involved, in the State ary education school education individualized conformity the provided 1414(a)(5) title.” of this section required under program §1401(18). C. 20 S.U. establishing language as statutory this majority reads “previously excluded bringing limited intent congressional systems of the public education the into handicapped children procedures adopt States the [requiring] instruction of consideration in individualized result would the attempt constrict its In at Ante, child.” each ma- of thrust “appropriate” of definition language “Noticeably absent opinionstates: jority level prescribing standard any substantive is statute Certainly handicapped children. be accorded
213 language of the statute requirement contains no like the imposed one by the lower courts—that States maximize the potential children ‘commensurate with the opportunity provided to other children.’” at Ante, 189-190, quoting (SDNY Supp. 483 F. 1980). 528, 534 agree
I language that the of the Act does not contain a sub- beyond stantive standard requiring that the education of- fered “appropriate.” must be However, if there are limits not evident from the face of the may statute on what be con- “appropriate sidered an they education,” must be found in purpose legislative statute or its history. The Act itself provide announces it will opportu- “full nity to all children.” §1412(2)(A) 20 U. S. C. (emphasis added). goal repeated This is throughout leg- history, islative frequent statements too ‘“passing phrases.’”1 references and isolated Ante, at 204, n. 26, quoting Department Washington State v. Post Co., 456 (1982). U. S. 595, 600 These statements elucidate the mean- ing “appropriate.” According to Report, the Senate example, the “guarantee Act does that handicapped children provided equal educational opportunity.” Rep. S. No. p. (1975) 94-168, (emphasis 9 added). promise ap- This pears throughout legislative history. Cong. See 121 (1975)(remarks Rec. 19482-19483 Randolph); Sen. id., at (Sen. 19504 Humphrey); (Sen. id., at Beall); 19505 id., (Rep. at Brademas); id., (Rep. Cornell); id., (Rep. Grassley); (Rep. id., at Perkins); id., at *32 1 The Court’s opinion heavily relies on the statement, which occurs throughout the legislative history, that, at the time of enactment, one mil lion of the roughly eight million handicapped children in the United States were excluded entirely from the system school and more than half were receiving an inappropriate e. g., ante, See, education. 189, at 195, 196-197, n. 20. But this statement was often linked to statements urging equal educational opportunity. See, e. g., Cong. 121 (1975) Rec. 19502 (remarks of Sen. Cranston); id., (remarks at 23702 Brademas). of Rep. is, That only wanted not to bring handicapped children into the schoolhouse, but also to benefit them they once had entered. 214 Taft); 37413 (Sen. at id., 37412 Mink); id., at (Rep.
37030 Cranston); (Sen. at id., Williams); 37418-37419 id., at (Sen. purpose of Beall). times Indeed, at (Sen. 37419-37420 handicapped child’s tailoring each described Act was her his or “to achieve child enable plan to educational pp. 19 13, 94-332, Rep. No. R.H. potential.” maximum (1975). Stafford, Senator 23709 Cong. Rec. (1975); 121 see agree all can “We declared: of sponsors one equiva- child] be should [given a that handi- not who children those one least, lent, history thus legislative The 19483. Id., at capped receive.” give intends that conclusion supports the directly commensu- opportunity an educational handicapped children children. given other that rate substantive a different opinion announces majority any upon impose the States “Congress not did that standard, nec- would than standard educational greater substantive meaningful.” Ante, at access such essary make “appropri- enlightening than more “meaningful” nois While Amy was clarify Because itself. purports to Court ate,” she from specialized instruction some provided with grade to passed from she because some benefit obtained appro- meaningful therefore receiving a grade, was she priate education.2 2 opinion turns majority conclusion, its support further As Commonwealth, F. 334 v. Children Retarded
Pennsylvania Assn. for v. (PARC), and Mills (1972) 279 1971), Supp. (ED 343 F. Pa. Supp. 1257 1972). (DC Supp. 866 Columbia, F. District Education Board however, not, Act does for the impetus as an served these decisions That language very case, the any In of the Act. limits as the them establish a standard 199, ante, sets Mills, majority quotes of non- equal opportunity education, educational some but handicapped children. by this question into called Mills, relying decisions since Indeed, Rodriguez, v. Dist. School Independent Antonio opinion in San Court’s (1973), states: S.U. found Wright Judge (DC 1967),] Hansen, Supp. F. [269 v. “In Hobson equal opportunity poor public school denying
This falls far short of what the Act intended. The Act de- specifically possible tails as as specialized the kind of educa- tion each child must receive. It appar- would ently satisfy the Court’s standard specialized “access to instruction and related services which are individually de- signed provide educational benefit to the handicapped child,” ante, at 201, for a deaf child Amy such as given to be teacher with a loud voice, for she would benefit from that service. requires The Act more. “special It defines educa- tion” to “specificallydesigned mean instruction, at no cost to parents guardians, unique meet the needs of a handi- capped §1401(16) . . child . .” (emphasis added).3 Provid- ing a teacher with a loud voice would not Amy’s meet needs and would satisfy not the Act. The basic floor of opportunity is instead, as the courts recognized, below intended to elimi- nate the effects of handicap, at least to the extent that given child will be equal an opportunity to learn if that is reasonably possible. Amy Rowley, without sign-language interpreter, comprehends less than half of what is said in the classroom—less than half of what normal compre- hend. This hardly is equal an opportunity to learn, even if Amy passing grades. makes
Despite its reliance on the
“appropriate”
use of
in the defi-
nition of the
majority
opinion
speculates that “Con-
gress used the word as much to
settings
describe in that available to more
affluent
school children was
violative
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A fortiori,
the defendants’
conduct here, denying plaintiffs and their
just
class
equal
publicly
supported education but all publicly supported education while providing
such education to other children,
is violative of the Due Process Clause.”
II is review for judicial standard the discussion Court’s The educa- “free appropriate aof discussion its as flawed whether only can ask court a Court, to the According tion.” the forth set procedures the “complied has the State is program individualized the whether Act” educa- receive child the to enable calculated “reasonably language the Both Ante, benefits.” tional demonstrate however, history, legislative the the more far conduct courts the intended Congress that inquiry. searching pro- the review significance major assigns majority The safe- “Procedural entitled ain section found being vision’s re- judicial for a provision would else where But guards.” that acknowledge does majority The belong? view receive “shall court that specifying language, current addi- hear shall proceedings, administrative records deci- its basing and, a party, request evidence tional such grant shall evidence, preponderance sion 1415(e)(2), is appropriate,” determines court relief as have would that language at Conference substituted was sharply. more much court reviewing role restricted sub- reduce decided Congress me enough clear It is decisions. administrative state deference judicial stantially not is review judicial shows history legislative state that the matters to procedural limited responsibility final, but first, given agencies content of a handicapped child’seducation. The Conference Committee directs courts to make an “independent deci- sion.” S. Rep. Conf. p. (1975). No. 94-455, The delib- change erate provision the review is unusually clear indication intended courts to undertake sub- stantive review relying instead of on the conclusions of the agency. state
On the floor of the Senate, Senator Williams, the chief sponsor of the bill, Committee Chairman, and *35 manager floor responsible legislation for the emphasized the Senate, the breadth of provisions the review at both the administrative judicial and levels: “Any parent guardian may or present complaint a con-
cerning any matter regarding the identification, evalua- tion, or placement educational provi- child or the sion of a appropriate free public education to such child. regard, In this Mr. President, I would like to stress that language the referring to 'free education’ adopted has been to make clear complaint that a may in- volve questions matters such as respecting a child’sindi- vidualized program, education questions of spe- whether cial education and related being provided services are charge without parents to the guardians, or questions re- lating to whether the provided services a child meet the standards of the State agency, education any or other question within scope the of the definition appro- of ‘free priate public education.’ In addition, it should be clear parent that a guardian may present complaint a alleg- ing that a State or local agency education has refused to provide services to may which a child be entitled or al- leging that the State or local agency has er- roneously classified a child as a handicapped child when, in fact, that child is not handicapped child.” Cong. (1975) Rec. 37415 (emphasis added). There is no doubt that agency the state itself must make sub- stantive legislative decisions. The history reveals that the Senator issues. same the novo, de consider, courts permitted action civil the that stated explicitly Williams original the related matters encompasses all Act the under Id., complaint. no have judicial review limitations Court’s the Thus, legislative or the language the support in either if end inquiry would envision not Congress did history. passing receiving marks is child showing made is it intended Instead, grade. grade to advancing from is aspect any of a inquiry into searching full permit a ex- standard, Court’s education. child’s IEP; part challenge to permit a ample, would beyond doubt history demonstrates legislative plan as if the possible, even challenges to be such intended some give child reasonably calculated developed is benefits. spe- supply the failing to challenge IEP for can Parents individual needed services related cial Rowleys As did. what is That handicapped child. con- upon review called *36 “courts observes, Government 1415(e)in- [§] U. S. C. IEP, accordance of an tent of the basis the judgment, on amake required to evitably are concerning whether presented, evidence ‘appropri- district by school local proposed methods United they for Brief involved.” handicapped child ate’ as below, courts Curiae Amicus precisely that. did Act, required were neither provisions of the judicial review Under by bound Appeals was Court nor Court District “appropriate” an of what construction State’s considered authorities the state general what means Rowley. Because Amy appropriate education reflect tome seems below courts standard findings are factual their purpose and because congressional respectfully dissent. I clearly erroneous,