Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley
This case presents a question of statutory interpretation Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals and the District Court misconstrued the requirements imposed by the Congress upon States which receive federal funds under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. We agree and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Act), 20 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., provides federal money to assist state and local agencies in educating handicapped children, and conditions such funding upon a States compliance with extensive goals and procedures. The Act represents an ambitious federal effort to promote the education of handicapped children, and was passed in response to Congress’ perception that a majority of handicapped in the United States “were either totally excluded from schools or [were] sitting idly in regular classrooms awaiting the time when they were old enough to ‘drop out.’” H.R. Rep. No. 94-332. P.2 (1975). The Acts evolution and major provisions shed light on the question of statutory interpretation which is at he heart of this case.
Congress first addressed the problem of education the handicapped in 1966 when it amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish a grant program “for the purpose of assisting the States in the initiation, expansion, and improvement of programs and projects . . . for the education of handicapped children.” Pub. L. No. 89-750, 161, 80 Stat. 1204 (1966). That program was repealed in 1970 by the Education for the Handicapped Act, Pub. L. No. 91-230, 84 Star, 175, Part B of which established a grant program similar in purpose to the repealed legislation. Neither the 1966 nor 1970 legislation contained specific guidelines for state use of the grant money; both were aimed primarily at stimulating the States to develop educational resources and to train personnel for educating the handicapped.1
Dissatisfied with the progress being made under these earlier enactments, and spurred by two district court decisions holding that handicapped children should be given access to a public education, Congress in 1974 greatly increased federal funding for education of the handicapped and for the first time required recipient States to adopt “a goal of providing full educational opportunities to all handicapped children.” Pub. L. 93-380, 88 Stat. 579, 583 (1974) (the 1974 statue). The 1974 statute was recognized as an interim measure only, adopted “in order to give the Congress an additional year in which to study what if any additional Federal assistance [was] required to enable the States to meet the needs of handicapped children.” H.R. Rep. No. 94-332, supra, p.4. The ensuing year of study produced the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975.
In order to qualify for federal financial assistance under the Act, a State must demonstrate that it “has in effect a policy that assures all handicapped children the right to a free appropriate public education.” 20 U.S.C. 1412(1). That policy must be reflected in a state plan submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of Education, 3 1413, which describes in detail the goals, programs, and timetables under which the State intends to educate handicapped children within its borders. 1412. 1413. States receiving money under the Act must provide education to the handicapped by priority, first “to handicapped children who are not receiving an education” and second “to handicapped children . . . with the most severe handicaps who are receiving an inadequate education,” 1413(3), and to the maximum extent appropriate” must educate handicapped children “with children who are not handicapped.” 1412(5). 4 The Act broadly defines “handicapped children” to include “mentally retarded, hard of hearing, deaf, speech impaired, visually handicapped, seriously emotionally disturbed, orthopedically impaired, [and] other health impaired children, [and] children with specific learning disabilities.” 1401(1).5
The “free appropriate public education” required by the Act is tailored to the unique needs of the handicapped child by means of an ‘individualized educational program” (IEP). 1401(18). The IEP, which is prepared at a meeting between a qualified representative of the local educational agency, the child’s teacher, the child parents or guardian, and, where appropriate, the child, consists of a written document containing
(A) a student of the present levels of educational performance of the child,
(B) a statement of annual goals, including short-term instructional objectives,
(C) a statement of the specific educational services to be provided to such child, and the extent to which such child will be able to participate in regular educational programs,
(D) the projected date for initiation and anticipated duration of such service, and
(E) appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, on at least an annual basis, whether instructional objectives are being achieved.” 1401(19).
Local or regional educational agencies must review, and where appropriate revise, each child’s IEP at least annually. 1404(a)(5). See also 1413(a)(11), 1414(a)(5).
In addition to the state plan and the IEP already described, the Act imposes extensive procedural requirements upon State receiving federal funds under its provisions. Parents or guardians of handicapped children must be notified of any proposed change in “the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of a free appropriate public education to the child,” and must be permitted to being a complaint about “any matter relating to” such evaluation and education. 1415(b)(1)(D) and (E).6 Complaints brought by parents or guardians must be resolved at “an impartial due process hearing,” and appeal to the State educational agency must be provided if the initial hearing is held at the local or regional level. 1415(B)(2) and (c)7 Thereafter, “any party aggrieved by the findings and decisions” of the state administrative hearing has “the right to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint . . .in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United Stated without regard to the amount in controversy.” 1415(e)(2).
Thus, although the Act leaves to the States the primary responsibility for developing and executing educational programs for handicapped children, it imposes significant requirements to be followed in the discharge of that responsibility. Compliance is assured by provisions permitting the withholding of federal funds upon determination that a participating state or local agency has failed to satisfy the requirements of the Act, 1414(b)(A), 1416, and by the provision for judicial review. At present, all States except New Mexico receive federal funds under the portions of the Act at issue today. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae 2, n. 2.
This case arose in connection with the education of Amy Rowley, a deaf student at the Furnace Woods School in the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Peekskill, New York. Amy has minimal residual hearing and is an excellent lip reader. During the year before she began attending furnace Woods, a meeting between her parents and school administrators resulted in a decision to place in a regular kindergarten class in order to determine what supplement services would be necessary to her education. Several members of the school administration prepared for Amy’s arrival by attending a course in sign-language interpretation, and a teletype machine was installed in the principal’s office to facilitate communication with her parents who are also deaf.
At the end of the trial period it was determined that Amy should remain in the kindergarten class, but that she should be provided with an FM hearing aid which would amplify words spoken into a wireless receiver by the teacher or fellow students during certain classroom activities. Amy successfully completed her kindergarten year.
As required by the Act, an IEP was prepared for Amy during the fall of her first-grade year. The IEP provided that Amy should be educated in a regular classroom at Furnace Woods, should continue to use the FM hearing aid, and should receive instruction from a tutor for the deaf for one hour each day and from a speech therapist for three hours each week. The Rowleys agreed with the IEP but insisted that Amy also be provided a qualified sign-language interpreter in all of her academic classes. Such an interpreter had been placed in Amy’s kindergarten class for a two-week experimental period, but the interpreter had reported that Amy did not need his services at that time. The school administrators likewise concluded that Amy did not need such an interpreter in her first-grade classroom. They reached this conclusion after consulting the school district’s Committee on the Handicapped, which had received expert evidence from Amy’s parents on the importance of a sign-language interpreter, received testimony from Amy’s teacher and other persons familiar with her academic and social progress, and visited a class for the deaf.
When their request for an interpreter was denied, the Rowleys demanded and received a hearing before an independent examiner. After receiving evidence from both sides, the examiner agreed with the administrators’ determination that an interpreter was not necessary because “Amy was achieving educationally, academically, and socially” without such assistance. App. to Pet. for Cert. F-22. The examiner’s decision was affirmed on appeal by the New York Commissioner of Education on the basis of substantial evidence in the record. Id., at E-4. Pursuant to the Act’s provision for judicial review, the Rowleys then brought an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming that the administrators’ denial of the sign-language interpreter constituted a denial of the “free appropriate public education” guaranteed by the Act.
The District Court found that Amy “is a remarkably well adjusted child” who interacts and communicates well with her classmates and has “developed an extraordinary rapport” with her teachers. 483 F. Supp, 528, 531. It also found that “she performs better than the average child in her class and is advancing easily from grade to grade,” id., at 534, but “that she understands considerably less of what goes on in class than she would if she were not deaf” and thus “is not learning as much, or performing as well academically, as she would without her handicap,” id., at 532. This disparity between Amy’s achievement and her potential led the court to decide that she was not receiving a “free appropriate public education” which the court defined as “an opportunity to achieve [her] full potential commensurate with the opportunity provided to other children.” id., at 534. According to the District Court, such a standard “requires that the potential of the handicapped child be measured and compared to his or her performance, and that the remaining differential or ‘shortfall’ be compared to the shortfall experienced by nonhandicapped children.’ Ibid. The District Court’s definition arose from its assumption that the responsibility for “giving content to the requirement of an ‘appropriate education’” had ‘been left entirely to the federal courts and the hearing officers.’ Id., at 533.8
A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. The Court of Appeals “agree[d] with the [D]istrict [C]ourt’s conclusions of law,” and held that its ‘findings of fact [were] not clearly erroneous.” 632 F. 2d 945, 947 (1980).
We granted certiorari to review the lower courts’ interpretation of the Act. Such review requires us to consider two questions: What is meant by the Act’s requirement of a “free appropriate public education”? And what is the role of state and federal courts in exercising the review granted by 1415 of the Act? We consider these questions separately.9
This is the first case in which this Court has been called upon to interpreter any provision of the Act. As noted previously, the District Court and Court of Appeals concluded that “the Act itself does nor define ‘appropriate education,’” 483 F. Supp., at 533, but leaves “to the courts and the hearing officers” the responsibility of “giv[ing] content to the requirement of an appropriate education.” Ibid. see also 632 F. 2d, at 947.
Petitioners contend that the definition of the phrase “free appropriate public education” used by the courts below overlooks the definition of the phrase actually found in the Act. Respondents agree that the Act defines “free appropriate public education,” but contend that the statutory definition is not “functional” and thus “offers judges no guidance in their consideration of controversies involving the ‘identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of a free appropriate public education,” Brief for Respondents 28. The United States, appearing as amicus curaie on behalf of respondents, states that ‘[a]though the Act includes definitions of ‘free appropriate public education’ and other related terms, the statutory definitions do not adequately explain what is meant by ‘appropriate,” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae. 13.
We are loath to conclude that Congress failed to offer any assistance in defining the meaning of the principal substantive phrase used in the Act. It is beyond dispute that, contrary to the conclusions of the courts below, the Act does expressly define “free appropriate public education”:
The term ‘ free appropriate public education’ means special education and related services which
(A) have been provided at public expenses, under public supervision and direction, and without charge,
(B) meet the standards of the State educational agency,
(C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the State involved, and
(D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under section 1414(a)(5) of this title.” 1401(18) (emphasis added).
“Special education,” as referred to in this definition, means “specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents or guardians, to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, including classroom instruction, instruction in physical education, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions.” 1401(16). “Related services” are defined as “transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services . . . as may be required to assist a handicapped child to benefit from special education.” 1401(17). 10
Like many statutory definitions, this one tends toward the cryptic rather than the comprehensive, but that is scarcely a reason for abandoning the quest for legislative intent. Whether or not the definition is a “functional” one, as respondents contend it is not, it is the principal tool which Congress has given us for parsing the critical phrase of the Act, we think more must be made of it than either respondents or the United States seems willing to admit.
According to the definitions contained in the Act, a “free appropriate public education” consists of educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child “to benefit” from the instruction. Almost as a checklist for adequacy under the Act, the definition also requires that such instruction and services be provided at public expense and under public supervision, meet the State’s educational standards, approximate the grade levels used in the State’s regular education, and comport with the child’s IEP. Thus, if personalized instruction is being provided with sufficient supportive services to permit the child to benefit from the instruction, and the other items on the definitional checklist are satisfied, the child is receiving a “free appropriate public education” as defined by the Act.
Other portions of the statute also shed light on congressional intent. Congress found that of the roughly eight million handicapped children in the United States at the time of enactment, one million were “excluded entirely form the public school system” and more than half were receiving an inappropriate education. Note to 1401. In addition, as mentioned in Part I, the Act requires States to extend educational services first to those children who are receiving no education and second to those children who are receiving an “inadequate education.” 1412(3). When these express statutory findings and priorities are read together with the Act’s extensive procedural requirements and its definition of “free appropriate public education,” the face of the statute evinces a congressional intent to bring previously excluded handicapped children into public education systems of the States and to require the States to adopt procedures which would result in individualized consideration of and instruction for each child.
Noticeably absent from the language of the statue is any substantive standard prescribing the level of education to be accorded handicapped children. Certainly the language of the statute contains no requirement like the one imposed by the lower courts-that States maximize the potential of handicapped children “commensurate with the opportunity provided to other children.” 483 F. Supp., at 534. That standard was expounded by the District court without reference to the statutory definitions or even to the legislative history of the Act. Although we find the statutory definition of “free appropriates public education” to be helpful in our interpretation of the Act, there remains the question of whether the legislative history indicates a congressional intent that such education meet some additional substantive standard. For an answer, we turn to that history.
As suggested in Part I, federal support for education of the handicapped is a fairly recent development. Before passage of the Act some States has passed laws to improve the educational services afford handicapped children 12, but many of these children were excluded completely form any form of public education or were left to fend for themselves in classrooms designed for the education of their nonhandicapped peers. The House Report begins by emphasizing this exclusion and misplacement, noting that millions of handicapped children “were either totally excluded form schools or [were] sitting idly in regular classrooms awaiting the time when they were old enough to ‘drop out.’” H.R. Rep, No. 94-332, supra, at 2. See also S. Rep. No. 94-168, p. 8 (1975). One of the Act’s two principal sponsors in the Senate urged its passage in similar terms:
“While much progress has been made in the last few years, we can take no solace in that progress until all handicapped children are, in fact, receiving an education. The most recent statistics provided by the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped estimate that … 1.75 million handicapped children do not receive any educational services, and 2.5 million handicapped children are not receiving an appropriate education.” 121 Cong. Rec. 1946 (1975) (remarks of Sen. Williams).
This concern, stressed repeatedly throughout the legislative history 13, confirms the impression conveyed by the language of statute: By passing the Act, Congress sought primarily to make public education available to handicapped children. But in seeking to provide such access to public education, Congress did not impose upon the states any greater substantive educational standard than would be necessary to make such access meaningful. Indeed, Congress expressly “recognized that in many instances the process of providing special education and related services to handicapped children is not guaranteed to produce any particular outcome.” S. Rep. No. 94-168, supra, at 11. Thus, the intent of the Act was more to open the door of public education to handicapped children on appropriate terms than to guarantee any particular level of education once inside.
Both the House and the Senate reports attribute the impetus for the Act and its predecessors to two federal court judgments rendered in 1971 and 1972. As the Senate Report states, passage of the act “followed a series of landmark court cases establishing in law the right to education for all handicapped children.” S. Rep. No. 94-168, supra, at 6.14 The first case, Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PARC), 334 F. Supp. 1257 (1971) 343 F. Supp. 279 (ED PA 1972), was a suit on behalf of retarded children challenging the constitutionality of a Pennsylvania statue which acted to exclude them from public education and training. The case ended in a consent decree which enjoined the State from “den[ying] to any mentally retarded child access to a free public program of education and training.” 334 F. Supp. at 1258 (emphasis added).
PARC was followed by Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 343 F. Supp. 866 (DC 1972), a case in which the plaintiff handicapped children had been excluded from the District of Columbia public schools. The court judgment, quoted at page 6 of the Senate Report on the Act, provided:
“that no handicapped child eligible for publicly supported education in the District of Columbia public schools shall be excluded from a regular school assignment by a Rule, policy, or practice of the Board of Education of the District of Columbia or its agents unless such child is provided
(a) adequate alternative educational services suited to the child’s needs, which may include special education or tuition grants, and
(b) a constitutionally adequate prior hearing and periodic review of the child’s status, progress, and the adequacy of any educational alternative.” 348 F. Supp., at 878 (emphasis added).
Mills and PARC both held that handicapped children must be given access to an adequate, publicly supported education. Neither case purports to require any particular substantive level of education.15 Rather, like the language of the Act, the cases set forth extensive procedures to be followed in formulating personalized educational programs for handicapped children. See 348 F. Supp., at 878-883; 334 F. Supp., at 1258-1267.16. The fact that both PARC and Millsare discussed at length in the legislative reports suggest that the principles which they established are the principles which, to a significant extent, guided the drafters of the Act. Indeed, immediately after discussing these cases the Senate Report describes the 1974 statute as having “incorporated the major principles of the right to education cases.” S. Rep. No 94-168, supra, at 8. Those principles in turn became the basis of the Act, which itself was designed to effectuate the purposes of the 1974 statute. H.R. Rep. No. 94-332, supra, at 5.18
That the Act imposes no clear obligation upon recipient States beyond the requirement that handicapped children receive some form of specialized education is perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that Congress, in explaining the need for the Act, equated an “appropriate education” to the receipt of some specialized educational services.
The Senate report states: ‘The most recent statistics provided by the Bureau of education for the Handicapped estimate that of the more than 8 million children…with handicapping conditions requiring special education and related services, only 3.9 million such children are receiving an appropriate education.” S. Rep. No. 94-332, supra, at 8. 19 This statement, which reveals Congress’ view that 3.9 million handicapped children were “receiving an appropriate education” in 1975, is followed immediately in the Senate Report by a table showing that 3.9 million handicapped children were “served ” in 1975 and a slightly larger numbers were “unserved.” A similar statement and table appear in the House report. H.R. Rep. No. 94-332, supra, at 11-12.
It is evident from the legislative history that the characterization of handicapped children as “served” referred to children who were receiving some form of specialized educational services from the States, and that the characterization of children as “unserved” referred to those who were receiving no specialized educational services. For example, a letter sent to the United States Commissioner of Education by the House Committee on Education and Labor, signed by two key sponsors of the Act in the House, asked the commissioner to identify the number of handicapped ” children served” in each State. The letter asked for statistics on the number of children “being served” in various types of “special education programs” and the number of children who were not “receiving educational services.” Hearing on S. 6 before the Subcommittee on the Handicapped of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., 205-207 (1975). Similarly, Senator Randolph, one of the Act ‘s principal sponsors in the Senate, noted that roughly one-half of the handicapped children in the United States “are receiving special educational services.” Id., at 1.20 By characterizing the 3.9 million handicapped children who were “served” as children who were receiving an appropriate education,” the Senate and House reports unmistakably disclose Congress’ perception of the type of education required by the Act: an “appropriate education” is provided when personalized educational services are provided.21
Respondents contend that “the goal of the Act is to provide each handicapped child with an equal educational opportunity.” Brief for Respondents 35. We think, however, that the requirement that a State provides specialized educational services to handicapped children generates no additional requirement that the services so provided be sufficient to maximize each child’s potential “commensurate with the opportunity provided other children.”
Respondents and the United States correctly note that Congress sought “to provide assistance to the States carrying out their responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States to provide equal protection of the laws.” S. Rep. No. 94-168, supra, at 13.22 But we do not think that such statements imply a congressional intent to achieve: strict equality of opportunity or services.
The educational opportunities provided by our public school systems undoubtedly differ from student to student, depending upon a myriad of factors that might affect a particular student’s ability to assimilate information presented in the classroom. The requirement that States provide “equal” educational opportunities would thus seem to present an entirely unworkable standard requiring impossible measurements and comparisons. Similarly, furnishing handicapped children with only such services as are available to nonhandicapped children would in all probability fall short of the statutory requirement of “free appropriate public education.” To require, on the other hand, the furnishing of every special service necessary to maximize each handicapped child’s potential is, we think, further than Congress intended to go. Thus to speak in terms of “equal” services in one instance give less than what is required by the Act and in another instance more. The theme of the Act is “free appropriate public education,” a phrase which is too complex to be captured by the word “equal” whether on is speaking of opportunities or services.
The legislative conception of the requirements of equal protection was undoubtedly informed by the two district court decisions referred to above. But cases such as Mills and PARC held simply that handicapped children may not be excluded from entirely public education. In Mills, the District Court said:
If sufficient funds are not available to finance all of the services and programs that are needed and desirable in the system, then the available funds must be expended equitably in such a manner that no child is entirely excluded from a publicly supported education consistent with his needs and ability to benefit therefrom.” 348 F Supp., at 876.
The PARC Court used similar language, saying “[i]t is the commonwealth’s obligation to place each mentally retarded child in a free, public program of education and training appropriate to the child’s capacity. . .” 334 F. Supp., at 1260. The right of access to free public education enunciated by these cases is significantly different from any notion of absolute equality of opportunity regardless of capacity. To the extent the Congress might have looked further than these cases which are mentioned in the legislative history at the time of enactment of the Act, this Court has held at least twice that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require States to expend equal financial resources on the education of each child. San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1(1975); Mcinnis v. Shapiro, 238 F.Supp. 327 (ND Ill. 1968), aff’d sub nom, Mcinnis v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 322 (1969).
In explaining the need for federal legislation, the House Report noted that “no congressional legislation has required a precise guarantee for handicapped children, i.e., a basic floor of opportunity that would bring into compliance all school districts with the constitutional right of equal protection with respect to handicapped children.” H.R. Rep. No. 94-332, supra, at 14. Assuming that the Act was designed to fill the need identified in the House Report-that is, to provide a “basic floor of opportunity’ consistent with equal protection-neither the Act nor its history persuasively demonstrate that Congress thought that equal protection required anything more than equal access. Therefore, Congress’ desire to provide specialized educational services, even in furtherance of “equality,” cannot be read as imposing any particular substantive educational standard upon the States.
The District Court and the Court of Appeals thus erred when they held that the Act requires New York to maximize the potential of each handicapped child commensurate with the opportunity provided nonhandicapped children. Desirable though that goal might be, it is not the standard that Congress imposed upon States which receive funding under the Act. Rather, Congress sought primarily to identify and evaluate handicapped children, and to provide them with access to a free public education.
Implicit in the congressional purpose of providing access to a “free appropriate public education” is the requirement that the education to which access is provided be sufficient to confer some educational benefit upon the handicapped child. It would do little good for Congress to spend millions of dollars in providing access to public education only to have the handicapped child receive no benefit from that education. The statutory definition of “free appropriate public education,” in addition to requiring that States provide each child with “specially designed instruction,” expressly requires the provision of “such . . . supportive services . . . as may be required to assist a handicapped child to benefit from special education.” 1401(17) (emphasis added). We therefore conclude that the “basic floor of opportunity” provided by the Act consists of access to specialized instruction and related services which are individually designed to provide educational benefit to the handicapped child.23
The determination of when handicapped children are receiving sufficient educational benefits to satisfy the requirements of the Act presents a more difficult problem. The Act requires participating States to educate a wide spectrum of handicapped children, from the marginally hearing-impaired to the profoundly retarded palsied. It is clear that the benefits obtainable by children at one end of the spectrum will differ dramatically form those obtainable by children at the other end, with infinite variations in between. One child may have little difficulty competing successfully in an academic setting with nonhandicapped children while another child may encounter great difficulty in acquiring even the most basic of self-maintenance skills. We do not attempt today to establish any one test for determining the adequacy of educational benefits conferred upon all children covered by the Act. Because in this case we are presented with a handicapped child who is receiving substantial specialized instruction and related services, and who is performing above average in the regular classrooms of a public school system, we confine our analysis to the situation.
The Act requires participating States to educate handicapped children with nonhandicapped children whenever possible.24 When the “mainstreaming” preference of the Act has been met and a child is being educated in the regular classrooms of a public school system, the system itself monitors the educational progress of the child. Regular examinations are administered, grades are awarded, and yearly advancement to higher grade levels is permitted for those children who attain an adequate knowledge of the course material. The grading and advancement system thus constitutes an important factor in determining educational benefit. Children who graduate from our public school systems are considered by our society to have been “educated” at least to the grade level they have completed, and access to an “education” for handicapped children is precisely what Congress sought to provide in the Act.25
When the language of the Act and its legislative history are considered together, the requirements imposed by Congress become tolerably clear. Insofar as a State is required to provide a handicapped child with a “free appropriate public education,” we hold that it satisfies this requirements by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction. Such instruction and services must be provided at public expense, must meet the State’s educational standards, must approximate the grade levels used in the State’s regular education, and must comport with the child’s IEP. In addition, the IEP, and therefore the personalized instruction, should be formulated in accordance with the requirements of the Act, and if the child is being educated in the regular classrooms of the public education system, should be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade.26
As mentioned in Part I, the Act permits “any party aggrieved by the findings and decision” of the state administrative hearings “to bring a civil action “in” any State Court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States without regard to the amount in controversy.” 1415(e)(2). The complaint, and therefore the civil action, may concern “any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.” 1415(b)(1)(E). In reviewing the complaint, the Act provides that a court “shall receive the record of the state administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate.” 1415(e)(2).
The parties disagree sharply over the meaning of these provisions, petitioners contending that courts are given only limited authority to review for state compliance with the Act’s procedural requirements and no power to review the substance of the state program, and respondents contending that the Act requires courts to exercise de novo review over state educational decisions and policies. We find petitioners’ contention unpersuasive, for Congress expressly rejected provisions that would have so severely restricted the role of reviewing courts. In substituting the current language of the statue for language that would have made state administrative findings conclusive if supported by substantial evidence, the Conference Committee explained that courts were to make “independent decisions based on a preponderance of the evidence.” S. Conf. Rep.No. 94-455, supra, at 50. (See also 121 Cong. Rec. 37416 (1975), remarks of Senator Williams).
But although we find that this grant of authority is broader than claimed by petitioners, we think the fact that it is found in 1415 of the Act, which is entitled “Procedural Safeguards,” is not without significance when the elaborate and highly specific procedural safeguards embodied in 1415 are contrasted with the general and somewhat imprecise substantive admonitions contained in the Act, we think that the importance Congress attached to these procedural safeguards cannot be gainsaid. It seems to us no exaggeration to say that Congress placed every bit as much emphasis upon compliance with procedures giving parents and guardians a large measure of participation at every stage of the administrative process, see, e.g. 1415(a)-(d), as it did upon the measurement of the resulting IEP against a substantive standard. We think that the congressional emphasis upon full participation of concerned parties throughout the development of the IEP, as well as the requirements that state and local plans be submitted to the Commissioner for approval, demonstrate the legislative conviction that adequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP.
Thus, the provision that a reviewing court base its decision on the “preponderance of the evidence” is by no means an invitation to the court to substitute their own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review. The very importance which Congress has attached to compliance with certain procedures in the preparation of an IEP would be frustrated if a court were permitted simply to set state decisions aside. The fact that 1415(e) requires that the reviewing court “receive the records of the [state] administrative proceedings” carries with it the implied requirement that due weight shall be given to these proceedings. And we find nothing in the Act to suggest that merely because Congress was rather sketchy in establishing substantive requirements, as opposed to procedural requirements for the preparation of an IEP, it intended that reviewing courts should have a free hand to impose substantive standards of review which cannot be derived from the Act itself. In short, the statutory authorization to grant “such relief as the court determines is appropriate’ cannot be read without reference to the obligations, largely procedural in nature, which are imposed upon recipient States by Congress.
Therefore, a court’s inquiry in suits brought under 1415(e)(2) is twofold. First, has the State complied with the procedures set forth in the Act?27 And second, is the individualized educational program developed through the Act’s procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits?28 If these requirements are met, the State has complied with the obligations imposed by Congress and the courts can require no more.
In assuring that the requirements of the Act have been met, courts must be careful to avoid imposing their view of preferable educational methods upon the States.29 The primary responsibility for formulating the education to be accorded a handicapped child, and for choosing the educational method most suitable to the child’s needs, was left by the Act to state and local educational agencies in cooperation with the parents or guardian of the child. The Act expressly charges States with the responsibility of “acquiring and disseminating to teachers and administrators of programs for handicapped children significant information derived form educational research, demonstration, and similar projects, and of adopting, where appropriate, promising educational practices and materials.” 1413(a)(3). In the face of such a clear statutory directive, it seems highly unlikely that congress intended courts to overturn a State’s choice of appropriate educational theories in a proceeding conducted pursuant to 1415(e)(2).30
We previously have cautioned that courts lack the “specialized knowledge and experience” necessary to resolve “persistent and difficult questions of educational policy.” San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 42 (1973). We think that Congress shared that view when it passed the Act. As already demonstrated, Congress’ intention was not that the Act displace the primacy of States in the field of education, but that the states receive funds to assist them in extending their educational systems to handicapped. Therefore, once a court determines that the requirements of the Act have been met, questions of methodology are for resolution by the States.
Entrusting a child’s education to state and local agencies does not leave the child without protection. Congress sought to protect individual children by providing for parental involvement in the development of State plans and policies, supra, at 4-5 and n. 6, and in the formulation of the child’s individual educational program. As the Senate Report states:
The Committee recognizes that in may instances the process of providing special education and related services to handicapped children is not guaranteed to produce any particular outcome. By changing the language of the provision relating to individualized educational programs to emphasize the process of parent and child involvement, and to provide a written record of reasonable expectations, the Committee intends to clarify that such individualized planning conferences are a way to provide parent involvement and protection to assure that appropriate services are provided to a handicapped child. S. Rep. No.94-168, supra, at 11-12. See also S. Conf. Rep. No. 94-445, p. 30 (1975); 45 CFR 121a.345 (1980).
As this very case demonstrates, parents and guardians will not lack ardor in seeking to ensure that handicapped children receive all the benefits to which they are entitled by the Act.31
Applying these principles to the facts of this case, we conclude that the court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the District Court. Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals found that petitioners had failed to comply with the procedures of the Act, and the findings of neither 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 an ‘adequate’ education, since she performs better than the average child in her class and is advancing easily from grade to grade.” 483 F Supp., at 534.
In light of this finding, and of the fact that Amy was receiving personalized instruction and related services calculated by the Furnace Woods school administrators to meet her educational needs, the lower courts should not have concluded that the Act requires the provision of a sign-language interpreter. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.32
JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring in the judgment.
Although I reach the same result as the Court of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act differently. Congress unambiguously stated that it intended to “to take a more active role under its responsibility for equal protection of the laws to guarantee that handicapped children are provided equal educational opportunity.” S. Rep. No. 94-168, p. 9 (1975) (emphasis added). See also 20 U.S.C. 1412(2)(A)(i) (requiring States to establish plans with the ‘goal of providing full educational opportunity to all handicapped children”).
As I have observed before, “[i]t seems plain to me that Congress, in enacting [this statue], intended to do more than merely set out politically self-serving but essentially meaningless language about what the [handicapped] deserve at the hands of state . . . authorities.” Pennhurst State School v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 32 (1981) (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
The clarity of the legislative intent convinces me that the relevant question here is not, as the court says, whether Amy Rowley’s individualized education program was “reasonably calculated to enable [her] to receive educational benefits,” measured in part by whether or not she “achieves passing marks and advances from grade to grade.”27 Rather, the question is whether Amy’s program, viewed as a whole, offered her an opportunity to understand and participate in the classroom that was substantially equal to that given her nonhandicapped classmates. This is a standard predicated on equal educational opportunity and equal access to the educational process, rather than upon Amy’s achievement of any particular educational outcome.
In answering this question, I believe that the District Court and the court of Appeals should have given greater deference than they did to the findings of the School District’s impartial hearing officer and the State’s Commissioner of Education, both of whom sustained petitioner’s refusal to add sign-language interpreter to Amy’s individualized education program. 20 U.S.C. 1415(e)(2) (requiring reviewing court to “receive the records of the administrative proceeding” before granting relief). I would suggest further that those courts focused too narrowly on the presence or absence of a particular service-a sign-language interpreter- rather than on the total package of services furnished to Amy by the School Board.
As the Court demonstrates, petitioner Board has provided Amy Rowley considerably more than “a teacher with a loud voice.” See post, at 4 (dissenting opinion). By concentrating on whether Amy was “learning as much, or performing as well academically, as she would without her handicap,” 483 F. Supp. 528, 532 (SDNY 1980), the District Court and the Court of Appeals paid too little attention to whether, on the entire record, respondent’s individualized education program offered her an educational equal to that provided her nonhandicapped classmates. Because I believe that standard has been satisfied here, I agree that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed.