Behavioral Regression, ESY Services, and Holistic FAPE: The Fifth Circuit’s Guidance in North East ISD v. I.M.

Behavioral Regression, ESY Services, and Holistic FAPE: The Fifth Circuit’s Guidance in North East ISD v. I.M.

I. Introduction

The Fifth Circuit’s decision in North East Independent School District v. I.M. is a significant IDEA case at the intersection of academic progress, severe behavioral needs, and extended-school-year (ESY) services. The court affirms a district court’s ruling that a Texas school district denied a child with autism, intellectual disability, and a speech impairment a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), despite concededly strong academic efforts and some measurable academic progress.

The opinion is notable for several reasons:

  • It reinforces that behavioral regression—especially life-threatening elopement—can outweigh academic progress in evaluating whether an IEP is appropriate.
  • It clarifies that known effective ESY services cannot be arbitrarily limited; when a district knows regression over breaks is significant and that extended ESY mitigates it, failure to provide adequate ESY can render the IEP insufficiently individualized.
  • It strengthens the Fifth Circuit’s insistence on a holistic, academic-and-nonacademic analysis under the Michael F. factors, rejecting both an exclusive focus on “disability remediation” and any suggestion that academic progress alone can carry the day.
  • It distances the Fifth Circuit from the Eighth Circuit’s “good faith effort” standard, emphasizing actual educational benefit over mere effort.

The dispute arises between:

  • Plaintiff–Appellant: North East Independent School District (San Antonio, Texas)
  • Defendant–Appellee: I.M., an elementary student with autism, intellectual disability, and a speech impairment, proceeding through his mother and “next friend,” Bianca.

The core legal issue: whether I.M.’s individualized education program (IEP)—and particularly the scope and duration of ESY services—was “reasonably calculated to enable [him] to make progress appropriate in light of [his] circumstances,” as required by Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District.

II. Summary of the Opinion

A. Procedural Posture

After a due process hearing, a hearing officer found that the North East ISD denied I.M. a FAPE by failing to offer sufficient ESY services and ordered:

  • Full-summer ESY services, and
  • Year-round access to a voice-assisted communication device.

The school district sought review in federal district court, which affirmed the hearing officer. The district then appealed to the Fifth Circuit. A petition for rehearing en banc was filed; the panel treated it as a petition for panel rehearing and denied it, with no en banc poll requested. The panel withdrew its prior November 21, 2025 opinion and substituted the December 23, 2025 opinion at issue.

B. Factual Core

I.M. is a highly vulnerable student with:

  • Autism spectrum disorder,
  • Intellectual disability, and
  • A significant speech impairment, leaving him largely dependent on gestures and an iPad-based communication system.

His behaviors include:

  • Frequent elopement (running or wandering away from supervision), including escapes from school and the bus,
  • Serious toileting problems (urinating in inappropriate locations), and
  • Other disruptive behaviors (hitting walls, spinning, jumping).

While the district provided a specialized classroom, related services, a behavior intervention plan, and some ESY services, I.M. repeatedly regressed—academically and especially behaviorally—after school breaks. Elopement and toileting incidents spiked after the end of ESY and after shorter breaks such as spring break. Notably, one elopement resulted in I.M. running through an unlocked gate, crossing a busy road, and being restrained by bystanders; his life was in genuine danger.

The IEP team acknowledged that interruptions in services caused regression and that he had a “documented history of regression.” It also recognized that extended ESY services helped reduce elopement and toileting incidents. Despite this, the district:

  • Refused the parent’s request for full-day, full-summer ESY,
  • Offered only six weeks of half-day ESY in the summer, and
  • Offered no ESY services during shorter breaks even though those breaks also caused regression.

C. Holding

The Fifth Circuit:

  • Affirms the district court’s judgment that the school district failed to provide a FAPE under the IDEA.
  • Holds that:
    • The IEP was insufficiently individualized (first Michael F. factor), because it failed to adequately address I.M.’s severe elopement and toileting regression over breaks through appropriately robust ESY services.
    • The IEP failed under the academic/nonacademic benefit analysis (fourth Michael F. factor), because I.M.’s serious behavioral regression—especially dangerous elopement—outweighed his academic progress.

The court holds that the district court applied the correct legal standards (including Endrew F. and Michael F.) and that its underlying factual determinations were not clearly erroneous.

III. Legal Framework and Standards

A. IDEA and FAPE

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., offers states federal funds to educate children with disabilities in return for providing them a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE). The essential vehicle for delivering FAPE is the Individualized Education Program (IEP), a written plan developed by a team including:

  • School district representatives,
  • Special and general education teachers, and
  • The child’s parents (and, where appropriate, the child).

The Supreme Court in Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas County School District RE‑1, 580 U.S. 386 (2017), articulated the modern FAPE standard:

An IEP must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”

For children who cannot be fully integrated into regular classrooms or who cannot meet grade-level standards, the program must still be “appropriately ambitious” given the child’s unique situation.

B. The Michael F. Factors (Fifth Circuit FAPE Test)

The Fifth Circuit applies the four-factor test from Cypress-Fairbanks ISD v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 1997), to determine whether an IEP provides FAPE:

  1. Individualization: Is the program individualized on the basis of the student’s assessment and performance?
  2. Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): Is the program administered in the least restrictive environment?
  3. Coordination and Collaboration: Are the services provided in a coordinated and collaborative manner by key stakeholders?
  4. Academic and Nonacademic Benefit: Does the student demonstrate positive academic and nonacademic benefits?

The fourth factor is “critical,” because the IDEA requires more than trivial educational advancement; the student must be likely to make real progress rather than stagnate or regress.

C. Standards of Review

  • Legal questions / mixed questions of law and fact (e.g., whether an IEP is appropriate under IDEA): Reviewed de novo.
  • Underlying factual findings (e.g., what regression occurred, what services were provided, whether benefit was obtained):
    • Reviewed for clear error, meaning the appellate court must have a “definite and firm conviction” that the district court made a mistake to reverse.
    • If the district court chooses between two permissible views of the evidence, there is no clear error.
  • If the district court’s fact-finding rests on a misapprehension of controlling legal principles, those findings are effectively reviewed de novo. (Hovem.)

I.M., as the party challenging the IEP’s adequacy, bore the burden of proof under Michael F.

IV. Detailed Analysis of the Court’s Reasoning

A. Factor One – Insufficient Individualization to Address Severe Behavioral Regression

1. Statutory duty to address behavior

The IDEA explicitly requires IEP teams, where behavior impedes learning, to:

“consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior.”

The court acknowledges that an IEP need not be perfect (E.R. v. Spring Branch ISD) and that the question is reasonableness, not perfection. But when behavior is as severe and dangerous as I.M.’s elopement and toileting, the duty to design and implement effective, individualized interventions becomes more demanding.

2. What the district did—and what it knew

North East ISD’s IEPs for I.M. included:

  • A behavior intervention plan (BIP),
  • Specific elopement strategies (incentive systems, “stop sign” cues, close supervision), and
  • Visual reinforcement strategies for toileting.

These efforts were not cosmetic; they produced some improvements. For example, during second grade, elopement reduced from about 83% of school days to 23%. However:

  • At the start of school years and after breaks, elopement and toileting incidents surged.
  • The IEP team itself acknowledged I.M.’s “documented history of regression caused by the interruption of services.”
  • The district recognized that extended ESY services improved toileting and elopement, and even modestly lengthened ESY one summer (from three to six weeks of half-day services) because of this.

Yet, despite data and internal findings confirming that:

  • Breaks caused regression, and
  • Longer ESY reduced regression,

the district refused Bianca’s request for:

  • Full-day ESY throughout the summer, and
  • ESY during shorter breaks like spring break.

The resulting program left:

  • A full month with no services between mid-July and the start of fourth grade, and
  • No ESY during other known regression points (e.g., spring break).

3. The role of ESY in individualization

ESY services exist specifically to prevent substantial regression that a child cannot relearn quickly after a break. Here, the court ties ESY to the first Michael F. factor: individualization. The IEP was individualized in many ways, but it:

  • Failed to individualize the length and timing of ESY services in a way that matched I.M.’s known regression pattern.
  • Ignored the district’s own conclusion that I.M. had “a documented history of regression” due to breaks and that he would “benefit from extended ESY.”

This is not a case where ESY was merely desirable or where regression was speculative. The pattern was documented:

  • After second grade ESY (only three weeks), regression exploded (elopement on more than 40% of days in third grade, new toileting issues after spring break).
  • After six-week ESY the next summer, I.M. still had severe regression in fourth grade, including 20 toileting incidents in six weeks and multiple elopements, culminating in a dangerous escape across a busy road.

Crucially, the district even stopped systematically tracking elopement data in fourth grade, making it harder to measure the problem precisely—an omission that undercuts its position that behaviors were under control.

4. Comparison to Boone: elopement as a “major issue” requiring robust planning

The panel draws a direct parallel to Boone v. Rankin County Public School District, 140 F.4th 697 (5th Cir. 2025), where the court held that:

  • An IEP was insufficiently individualized when it did not adequately address elopement in an autistic student.
  • Even though the district had a BIP on paper, the plan did not operationalize known elopement accommodations.

The court reasons that, if the district in Boone failed where there was only one controlled elopement, then North East ISD’s failure is even more glaring, because:

  • I.M.’s elopements were frequent and life-threatening,
  • His communication device did not accompany him when he eloped, further increasing danger, and
  • The district knew ESY worked to mitigate regression but nonetheless provided a too-short ESY and refused further expansion.

The Fifth Circuit concludes that, given the gravity and persistence of I.M.’s elopement and toileting problems, the IEP’s failure to provide sufficient ESY and other behaviorally focused services renders it insufficiently individualized. That conclusion is a factual assessment, and the panel sees no clear error in the district court’s agreement with the hearing officer.

B. Factor Four – Weighing Academic Progress Against Severe Nonacademic Regression

1. The “holistic” academic/nonacademic inquiry

Under Michael F., courts must consider whether the child receives “positive academic and non-academic benefits.” As the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly emphasized (A.A. v. Northside ISD, H.W. v. Comal ISD):

  • The inquiry must be holistic, not limited to any single domain.
  • No one factor, including academic progress, can “overwhelm” the analysis.

Here, the school district argued that the district court improperly focused on “disability remediation” (i.e., fixing elopement and toileting) instead of broader educational benefit, and that academic progress alone should have sufficed to make the IEP appropriate.

2. Rejecting “disability remediation in disguise” – distinguishing Hovem

In Hovem, the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court that:

  • Focused nearly exclusively on one area of disability (writing) and the lack of specialized benefit tailored to that area,
  • While discounting the student’s overall academic success: passing grades, mainstream inclusion, graduation, and college attendance.

Hovem warned against defining educational benefit “exclusively or even primarily in terms of correcting the child’s disability,” calling that “disability remediation,” which is improper if it marginalizes other evidence of educational benefit.

The panel here carefully distinguishes Hovem:

  • Different student profile: Hovem involved a high-functioning high school student in regular classes, succeeding academically; the “system itself” (grades, graduation) confirmed educational benefit.
  • Different analytical posture: I.M. is functioning academically at a kindergarten level in fourth grade, and cannot be fully integrated into a regular classroom; the usual metrics of grade advancement and GPA are not an adequate proxy for educational benefit.
  • Holistic, not one-dimensional, reasoning: The district court in I.M. expressly credited his “clear academic progress” but found that severe behavioral regression—especially dangerous elopement—outweighed those gains. This is exactly the sort of holistic weighing Hovem demands.

Thus, the panel rejects the claim that the district court engaged in impermissible “disability remediation.” It instead holds that the court properly balanced academic and nonacademic domains.

3. Academic benefit is important, but not dispositive

The district argued that, under Hovem and Adam J. v. Keller ISD, academic progress “clearly militates” in favor of finding an IEP appropriate and, in effect, should dominate the analysis. The panel responds in two key ways:

  • It points out that the district misquoted the precedent; those cases say academic benefit “militates in favor” of the IEP’s adequacy, not that it is singularly determinative.
  • Citing H.W. v. Comal ISD, the Fifth Circuit reiterates that “no one factor can overwhelm” the overall FAPE inquiry.

Here, the record showed:

  • Some clear academic progress (I.M. appropriately progressed and even mastered certain third-grade IEP goals), but
  • Severe nonacademic regression: repeated toileting incidents, frequent elopements, and life-threatening escapes after breaks, all despite ongoing behavioral plans.

Because I.M.’s behavioral issues:

  • Directly impeded his ability to benefit from instruction, and
  • Created serious risk to his physical safety,

the district court concluded that his nonacademic regression outweighed academic gains. The Fifth Circuit holds that this weighing is a permissible view of the evidence and is not clearly erroneous.

4. Rejection of the Eighth Circuit’s “good faith effort” standard

The district also invoked Lathrop R‑II School District v. Gray, 611 F.3d 419 (8th Cir. 2010), which applied an Eighth Circuit rule that:

“even if more positive behavior interventions could have been employed, that fact is largely irrelevant” if the district made a “good faith effort” to help the student achieve educational goals.

The Fifth Circuit explicitly distances itself from this standard:

  • It notes that the Eighth Circuit applies a different framework than the Michael F. factors.
  • It observes that, while a past unpublished Fifth Circuit opinion quoted the Eighth Circuit’s “good faith” language in a footnote, that is not enough to make it binding law in this circuit.
  • Substantively, the Fifth Circuit’s approach gives primacy to actual educational benefit, not merely the district’s efforts or intentions.

This clarification is important: it confirms that in the Fifth Circuit, a school district cannot rely on “we tried” if the program is not reasonably calculated to—and in fact does not—deliver meaningful benefit in light of the child’s circumstances.

C. The Central Role of Safety and Elopement in FAPE Analysis

One of the most striking features of this opinion is the court’s implicit recognition that physical safety and basic self-care (e.g., toileting) are not peripheral “medical” or “remedial” concerns but core educational needs under IDEA.

For I.M., elopement is not a mere classroom disruption; it:

  • Requires constant adult supervision,
  • Interrupts instruction,
  • Exposes him to significant risk of injury or death, and
  • Is exacerbated by breaks in services, which the district has documented.

The court therefore treats the failure to adequately address elopement and toileting—through properly tailored ESY and behavioral strategies—as a fundamental flaw in the IEP, not a secondary or optional concern.

V. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

A. Core IDEA and FAPE Cases

  • Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. 386 (2017)
    • Provides the “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” standard.
    • Emphasizes that every child should have the chance to meet “challenging objectives.”
    • The Fifth Circuit uses Endrew F. as the overarching FAPE benchmark that guides how it applies the Michael F. factors.
  • Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
    • For mainstreamed students, an IEP is generally appropriate if it is reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade.
    • Hovem relied heavily on this when dealing with a high-functioning student in regular classes.
    • In I.M.’s case, Rowley’s proxy (grade advancement) is less helpful because I.M. is not performing at grade level and is not fully integrated, reinforcing the need to look more broadly at both academic and functional progress.

B. Fifth Circuit FAPE Framework Cases

  • Cypress-Fairbanks ISD v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 1997)
    • Establishes the four-factor test used throughout this opinion.
    • Here, factors one (individualization) and four (academic/nonacademic benefit) are dispositive; factors two (LRE) and three (collaboration) favored the district and are not contested on appeal.
  • Boone v. Rankin County Public School District, 140 F.4th 697 (5th Cir. 2025)
    • Confirms that an IEP is insufficiently individualized when it fails to implement known, necessary elopement accommodations for an autistic student.
    • Provides a close factual and doctrinal analogue for the court to treat I.M.’s elopement as a central FAPE issue and to emphasize that mere presence of a BIP is not enough if it is not effective.
  • Klein ISD v. Hovem, 690 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2012)
    • Warns against “disability remediation” as the exclusive lens for FAPE; requires a holistic view of all educational benefits, including the system’s confirmation through grades and graduation.
    • Distinguished in this case because I.M. is not a mainstreamed, high-functioning student and his academic success cannot be gauged solely through grade-level benchmarks.
    • Also cited for standard-of-review nuances: factual findings premised on misapplied legal standards are reviewed de novo.
  • E.R. v. Spring Branch ISD, 909 F.3d 754 (5th Cir. 2018)
    • Clarifies that an IEP need not be ideal or maximize a student’s potential; it must be reasonable and “aim to enable the child to make progress.”
    • The panel implicitly measures North East ISD’s plan against this standard and finds it lacking as to behavior and ESY.
  • A.A. ex rel. K.K. v. Northside ISD, 951 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2020)
    • Emphasizes that the fourth factor looks at positive academic and nonacademic benefit.
    • Supports the panel’s insistence that behavioral and safety-related regression cannot be sidelined simply because academic progress exists.
  • H.W. ex rel. Jennie W. v. Comal ISD, 32 F.4th 454 (5th Cir. 2022)
    • Describes the FAPE inquiry as “fact-intensive, individualized, holistic,” and reiterates that no single factor can dominate.
    • The panel uses this to reject the district’s suggestion that academic progress alone should resolve the case.
  • Adam J. ex rel. Robert J. v. Keller ISD, 328 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2003)
    • States that academic benefit “militates in favor” of finding an IEP appropriate.
    • The panel uses this language to clarify that academic benefit is a strong but not decisive consideration.
  • Renee J. ex rel. C.J. v. Houston ISD, 913 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 2019)
    • Reinforces the notion that trivial educational advancement is not sufficient; the child must likely progress, not regress.
    • Cited in Boone and echoed here in stressing that regression after breaks is incompatible with FAPE where the district knows how to mitigate it.

C. Out-of-Circuit Authority: Eighth Circuit’s “Good Faith” Standard Rejected

  • Lathrop R‑II School District v. Gray, 611 F.3d 419 (8th Cir. 2010)
    • Applies an Eighth Circuit rule minimizing the relevance of more optimal interventions if the district made a “good faith effort.”
    • Distinguished because:
      • The Eighth Circuit uses a different FAPE framework,
      • The student’s behaviors, while disruptive, were not comparably life-threatening, and
      • The Fifth Circuit’s own case law does not equate good faith with adequacy under IDEA.
  • CJN v. Minneapolis Public Schools, 323 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2003) and M.M. v. District 0001 Lancaster County School, 702 F.3d 479 (8th Cir. 2012)
    • Source of the “good faith effort” language.
    • The panel notes that a prior unpublished Fifth Circuit footnote quoted this language, but clarifies that this does not transplant the Eighth Circuit standard into Fifth Circuit law.

D. Standards-of-Review Cases

  • Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985)
    • Classic articulation of clear-error review: no reversal where the factfinder chooses between two permissible views of the evidence.
    • Used here to remind that the appellate court does not re-weigh evidence de novo on factual issues.
  • Siplast, Inc. v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co., 23 F.4th 486 (5th Cir. 2022)
    • Applied to hold that the district forfeited a passing challenge to the hearing officer’s order on year-round access to a communication device because it was not raised below.
    • Reinforces standard rules of issue preservation on appeal.

VI. Complex Concepts Simplified

A. What is an IEP?

An Individualized Education Program (IEP) is a legally binding document that lays out:

  • The child’s present levels of performance,
  • Measurable annual goals,
  • Special education and related services to be provided,
  • Accommodations, modifications, and supports, and
  • How progress will be measured.

It is the operational blueprint for how the district will provide FAPE to a specific child.

B. What is ESY (Extended-School-Year) Service?

Extended-School-Year (ESY) services are special education and related services provided beyond the normal school year—usually over summer or long breaks—to:

  • Prevent substantial regression in critical skills that a child cannot quickly regain after returning to school.
  • Maintain meaningful educational benefit, especially where interruptions in services cause documented regression.

ESY is not automatically required for every child with a disability; it must be considered individually, based on evidence of regression and recoupment. In this case, ESY is central because:

  • There was a documented pattern of regression in elopement and toileting after breaks, and
  • Extended ESY proved effective in mitigating that regression.

C. What is “Elopement” in Special Education?

In this context, elopement means a child leaving a supervised area without permission or awareness of danger—running out of classrooms, school buildings, or off campus. For children like I.M., who lack safety awareness, elopement can be life-threatening (e.g., running into traffic, near water, or into unsafe neighborhoods).

D. FAPE in Academic and Nonacademic Dimensions

A Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) includes:

  • Academics (reading, math, writing, etc.), and
  • Nonacademic skills such as:
    • Behavioral regulation,
    • Social skills,
    • Self-care and independence (e.g., toileting), and
    • Functional communication and safety skills.

In North East ISD v. I.M., the court underscores that nonacademic issues—especially those tied to physical safety and basic self-care—can be as important as academics in determining whether FAPE is being provided.

E. “Disability Remediation” vs. Educational Benefit

“Disability remediation” is a term the Fifth Circuit uses to criticize an approach that:

  • Evaluates an IEP almost exclusively based on how well it “fixes” the child’s underlying disability in a narrow medical or deficit-focused sense,
  • While ignoring or undervaluing broader educational outcomes (e.g., successful participation in general education, graduation, functional progress).

The court warns that remediation alone is not the proper yardstick. Instead, courts must ask whether the IEP is reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit as a whole. In I.M.’s case, however, focusing on elopement and toileting is not mere remediation; those behaviors are core educational access issues.

F. Clear Error vs. De Novo Review

  • De novo review:
    • Applies to legal questions and mixed questions (like whether an IEP as a whole satisfies IDEA).
    • The appellate court gives no deference; it decides the question anew.
  • Clear-error review:
    • Applies to factual determinations (e.g., what services were provided, how the child regressed, whether he benefitted).
    • The appellate court will not disturb findings unless left with a “definite and firm conviction” that a mistake was made.

Here, the Fifth Circuit accepts the district court’s view of the evidence (severity of regression, ESY’s effectiveness, insufficiency of current ESY) as one permissible interpretation, and therefore does not reweigh those facts.

VII. Likely Impact on Future Cases and IDEA Practice

A. ESY as a Central FAPE Tool for Students with Severe Behavioral Regression

This decision will likely be cited in future Fifth Circuit litigation when:

  • A child exhibits consistent regression after breaks, particularly in behavior, self-care, or safety-related skills.
  • ESY has been shown to reduce regression, but the district still provides only minimal or “standard” ESY services (e.g., short summer sessions, no coverage of shorter breaks).

The opinion signals that:

  • When a district knows that regression occurs and that ESY mitigates it, limiting ESY to an arbitrary duration (e.g., six weeks of half-days) may render the IEP insufficiently individualized.
  • IEP teams must explicitly analyze ESY in light of data on regression and recoupment, especially where life-safety behaviors like elopement are involved.

B. Elevating Safety-Related Behaviors in FAPE Analysis

For children with autism and intellectual disability, behaviors like elopement and severe toileting problems are common litigation focal points. North East ISD v. I.M. reinforces that:

  • Such behaviors are not “ancillary” but central educational concerns,
  • A district’s failure to adequately address them can independently support a finding of FAPE denial, even where academics are improving, and
  • Data collection on these behaviors (frequency, severity, context) is critical; stopping data collection, as happened with elopement here, may undermine a district’s defense.

C. Holistic, Non-Formulaic Application of Michael F.

The opinion further entrenches the idea that the Michael F. factors:

  • Are a flexible framework, not a checklist.
  • Require case-specific, holistic evaluation of academic and nonacademic benefits, not rigid prioritization of one domain.
  • Do not permit any single factor, including academic progress, to control the outcome.

This discourages arguments that:

  • “Because the child advanced academically, the IEP is automatically appropriate,” or
  • “Because the district worked hard and acted in good faith, the IEP is immune from challenge.”

D. Clarifying the Fifth Circuit’s Distance from the Eighth Circuit’s “Good Faith” Standard

By explicitly distinguishing Gray, CJN, and M.M., the panel strengthens the Fifth Circuit’s independent doctrinal line. Districts cannot defend inadequate programs on the ground that:

  • They “tried their best” with the resources they had, or
  • While better interventions might exist, their omission is “largely irrelevant” because there was a good-faith effort.

Instead, the controlling question remains whether the IEP actually provides—or is reasonably calculated to provide—meaningful educational benefit, measured holistically in light of the child’s circumstances.

E. Practical Effects for IEP Teams and Practitioners

In practical terms, stakeholders should draw several lessons:

  • For school districts and IEP teams:
    • Maintain robust data on behavior and regression, especially after breaks.
    • Be prepared to expand ESY (duration and intensity) when data show persistent regression that jeopardizes safety or wipes out progress.
    • Do not assume that academic progress insulates the district from FAPE claims if severe behavior persists.
  • For parents and advocates:
    • Document patterns of regression and safety incidents thoroughly (dates, contexts, severity).
    • Use ESY requests to tie regression evidence to the need for extended services across both summers and shorter breaks.
    • Emphasize that safety and basic self-care are educational issues, not merely medical or behavioral side matters.
  • For hearing officers and courts:
    • Ensure findings address both academic and nonacademic domains explicitly.
    • Apply Michael F. holistically, using Endrew F. as an overarching standard.
    • Be cautious about importing out-of-circuit “good faith” or similar effort-based standards into FAPE analysis.

VIII. Conclusion

North East ISD v. I.M. stands as a significant Fifth Circuit decision refining the application of Endrew F. and Michael F. in cases involving severe behavioral challenges and regression over breaks. The court affirms that:

  • An IEP that delivers academic progress can still deny FAPE if it fails to address critical nonacademic needs such as safety, behavior, and self-care.
  • Where a district knows that a student experiences serious regression over breaks and that ESY services effectively mitigate that regression, limiting ESY to a standard or minimal program can render the IEP insufficiently individualized.
  • FAPE analysis in the Fifth Circuit remains holistic, individualized, and outcome-focused, rather than driven by a good-faith or effort-based defense.

By affirming the district court’s judgment and upholding the full-summer ESY remedy (and, by forfeiture, year-round access to a communication device), the Fifth Circuit underscores the IDEA’s promise: not merely to offer something labeled “services,” but to provide a program that, in practice, enables a child—academically and functionally—to make progress appropriate in light of that child’s unique circumstances.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Comments