North East ISD v. I.M.: Academic Progress Cannot Excuse Failure to Address Life‑Threatening Behavioral Regression Under the IDEA

I. Introduction

In North East Independent School District v. I.M., No. 24‑50833 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court judgment holding that a Texas school district denied a student with autism a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

The decision is significant because it clarifies and reinforces several key principles under the IDEA within the Fifth Circuit:

• Academic progress alone does not cure or outweigh severe nonacademic regression—especially when the regression is life‑threatening or seriously impedes access to education.
• When a district knows that extended-school-year (ESY) services effectively prevent dangerous behavioral regression, it must provide sufficiently robust ESY; partial measures that leave significant, predictable regression unaddressed can render an IEP inappropriate.
• The Fifth Circuit’s holistic “Michael F.” factors require serious consideration of behavioral and safety needs; those needs cannot be collapsed into a narrow “disability remediation” inquiry or subordinated to academic gains.
• Courts must defer under clear‑error review to district courts’ factfinding where multiple permissible views of the evidence exist, particularly regarding educational benefit and the adequacy of behavioral supports.

This commentary examines how the court applied the IDEA’s substantive standard from Endrew F., integrated its own precedent in Michael F., Hovem, Boone, and others, and distinguished an Eighth Circuit approach that emphasizes “good faith” over outcomes. It also explores the implications for IEP teams, particularly in cases involving severe behaviors such as elopement and toileting.

II. Case Overview

A. The Parties

• Plaintiff–Appellant: North East Independent School District (NEISD), a Texas public school district.
• Defendant–Appellee: I.M., an elementary school student with autism, intellectual disability, and a speech impairment, proceeding through his mother, Bianca R.

B. Factual Background

At the time relevant to the case, I.M. was an elementary‑aged child enrolled in NEISD in San Antonio. His disabilities resulted in:

• Limited verbal communication, largely replaced by gestures, facial expressions, and an iPad‑based communication app.
• Significant disruptive behaviors, including hitting walls/furniture, jumping, spinning, and other self‑stimulatory conduct.
• Serious toileting issues, including frequent accidents.
• Elopement—repeatedly running away from school and from the school bus, posing grave safety risks.

By fourth grade, academically, I.M. functioned at approximately a kindergarten level. Behaviorally, he required constant supervision. His elopement behavior was especially concerning: he ignored safety, crossed streets without awareness of traffic, and did not take his communication device when fleeing.

NEISD developed an individualized education program (IEP) and a behavior intervention plan that:

• Placed I.M. primarily in a special-education classroom, with some inclusion in general education settings.
• Provided speech and occupational therapy.
• Included behavioral strategies for elopement (e.g., incentives, visual cues like “stop” signs) and toileting (e.g., visual reinforcement for using designated areas).
• Offered ESY services over the summer, initially as a three‑week, half‑day program, later extended to six weeks of half‑day services.

Despite these supports, the record showed marked behavioral regression over breaks:

• After second grade ESY (3 weeks), I.M. regressed significantly: third‑grade data showed elopement on over 40% of school days; toileting worsened after spring break, including in‑class urination incidents that had not occurred before.
• After the expanded ESY (6 weeks) following third grade, I.M. again regressed before fourth grade: within the first two weeks, he ran away at least three times and had 20 toileting incidents in the first six weeks.
• His most dangerous elopement occurred in fourth grade: he left campus through an unlocked gate, ran toward and across a busy road, and had to be physically restrained by bystanders while staff pursued him in a car. The episode lasted around thirty minutes.

The IEP team itself documented that I.M. had a “documented history of regression caused by the interruption of services” and recognized that breaks caused regression “in behavior and skills related to independence (i.e., toileting).”

C. Dispute Over ESY Services

The core substantive dispute centered on the extent of ESY services:

• Bianca repeatedly requested full‑day ESY across the entire summer, and ESY supports over other breaks, to address I.M.’s recurring regressions.
• NEISD admitted that additional ESY would help, but insisted that expanded half‑day, six‑week ESY was “sufficient” and that full‑summer, full‑day services were “unnecessary.”
• The district also resisted providing ESY during shorter breaks, despite acknowledging regression following such interruptions.

The IEP team meetings regarding ESY “ended in disagreement.” I.M.’s mother ultimately sought relief through IDEA’s due process mechanism.

D. Procedural History

1. Administrative Due Process Hearing (April 2023).
   The hearing officer concluded that NEISD failed to provide FAPE under the IDEA. The officer ordered:
   • Full‑summer ESY services for I.M.
   • Year‑round access to a voice‑assisted communication device.
2. District Court Review.
   NEISD appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The district court upheld the hearing officer’s decision and ordered the district to implement the ordered remedies.
3. Appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
   NEISD appealed again, challenging primarily whether the IEP—as including the limited ESY services—provided FAPE. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court in all relevant respects.

III. Summary of the Fifth Circuit’s Decision

The Fifth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Graves, affirmed that NEISD denied I.M. an IDEA‑appropriate education. Applying the four Michael F. factors, the court held:

• The district court correctly found the IEP was insufficiently individualized (Factor 1) because it inadequately addressed I.M.’s severe elopement and toileting problems—especially his regression over breaks—even though the district knew longer or more frequent ESY services were effective.
• Although the IEP was administered in the least restrictive environment and in a coordinated manner (Factors 2 and 3), the district court properly concluded that I.M.’s nonacademic regression outweighed his academic progress (Factor 4). The IEP therefore failed to confer appropriate educational benefit under the IDEA.
• The district court did not commit “disability remediation” error under Hovem; instead, it undertook the required “holistic” analysis of academic and nonacademic benefits, as mandated by Endrew F. and Fifth Circuit precedent.
• Under the deferential “clear error” standard, the Fifth Circuit declined to disturb the district court’s factual findings about I.M.’s regression, the gravity of his elopements, and the inadequacy of the ESY duration and scope, emphasizing that NEISD mainly presented “a dueling view of the evidence,” which is insufficient to show clear error.

The court therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment and, implicitly, the underlying administrative decision, solidifying that:

When a school district knows that specific ESY services meaningfully reduce severe, dangerous regression, it must employ those services to the extent necessary to provide FAPE—even if the student is making measurable academic progress.

IV. Legal Framework and Precedents

A. IDEA, FAPE, and IEPs

The IDEA conditions federal funding on a state’s obligation to provide each child with a disability a “free appropriate public education.” This is operationalized through:

• A written individualized education program (IEP) that sets out the child’s current performance levels, goals, and special education and related services.
• Compliance with procedural safeguards and substantive adequacy standards, including appropriate consideration of behavioral needs under 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(B)(i).

The Supreme Court in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. 386 (2017), held that an IEP must be:

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

For students fully integrated and on a grade-level curriculum, this generally means an IEP aimed at enabling the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade. For children like I.M., who function far below grade level and cannot be fully integrated, courts must focus on whether the IEP is “appropriately ambitious” given their circumstances and whether it provides the chance to meet “challenging objectives.”

B. The Michael F. Factors

Within the Fifth Circuit, substantive FAPE adequacy is evaluated through the four Michael F. factors (from Cypress‑Fairbanks ISD v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 1997)):

1. Whether the program is individualized based on the student’s assessment and performance.
2. Whether it is administered in the least restrictive environment.
3. Whether services are provided in a coordinated and collaborative manner by key stakeholders.
4. Whether the student receives demonstrable academic and nonacademic benefits.

The fourth factor is “critical,” because a program that results in regression, trivial advancement, or fails to confer meaningful benefit does not meet the IDEA’s standard.

C. Standard of Review

• The Fifth Circuit reviews de novo whether an IEP is substantively appropriate under the IDEA, as this is a mixed question of law and fact.
• Underlying factual findings—such as the student’s educational needs, existence and extent of regression, and the benefit actually obtained—are reviewed for clear error.
  • A finding is clearly erroneous only if the evidence leaves the appellate court with a “definite and firm conviction” that a mistake has been made.
  • Where the factfinder chooses between two permissible views of the evidence, there is no clear error.

NEISD attempted to characterize most of its challenges as “legal” to obtain de novo review, but the Fifth Circuit noted that many of its arguments were, in substance, factual disputes and were therefore subject to clear-error deference.

D. Key Precedents Cited

1. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District

Endrew F. is the Supreme Court’s leading decision on the substantive FAPE standard. The Fifth Circuit relied on it for three core propositions:

• The IEP must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”
• This involves careful consideration of the child’s unique needs and context, not just a generic set of services.
• Every child must have the chance to meet “challenging objectives,” even if those objectives differ from grade-level standards.

Here, the court emphasized that because I.M. functioned academically at a kindergarten level while enrolled in fourth grade, the analysis could not be limited to grade-level metrics; his behavioral safety and independence (e.g., toileting, non‑elopement) were essential components of appropriate progress.

2. Cypress‑Fairbanks ISD v. Michael F.

The court used the Michael F. four‑factor framework as its organizing tool:

• Factors 2 and 3 (least restrictive environment and collaboration) were resolved in NEISD’s favor below and were not meaningfully challenged on appeal.
• The appeal turned on Factors 1 (individualization) and 4 (academic and nonacademic benefits).

The decision hence refines how the first and fourth Michael F. factors interact when behavioral regression is severe and known to be responsive to certain services (such as ESY).

3. Boone v. Rankin County Public School District, 140 F.4th 697 (5th Cir. 2025)

Boone is a recent Fifth Circuit decision involving elopement by an autistic child. Boone held that:

• When a school district fails to adequately address elopement in an IEP—even if a behavior plan formally exists—the IEP can be deemed insufficiently individualized.
• A formal plan that does not implement known required accommodations for elopement is inadequate.

In North East ISD v. I.M., the court explicitly analogized the case to Boone, observing that:

• NEISD, like the district in Boone, had a behavior intervention plan but did not fully implement the known, effective strategy—here, sufficiently robust ESY services addressing regression.
• I.M.’s elopement was even more severe and dangerous than in Boone, including his crossing of a busy road and repeated escapes from the bus and campus.

Boone thus supports the proposition that when elopement is a “major issue,” a district must implement an adequate plan—not merely draft one on paper.

4. Klein ISD v. Hovem, 690 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2012)

Hovem is central to the district’s argument and the panel’s clarification. In Hovem:

• The student, Per, had attention deficit disorder and a writing disability but was “highly intelligent,” attended regular classes, achieved passing grades, graduated, and went on to college.
• The district court found FAPE was denied because Per received “no academic benefit tailored to his disability.”
• The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that:
  • For students in regular classes meeting grade-level expectations, the system itself (passing marks and advancement) often “confirms” the presence of educational benefit.
  • It is error to define educational benefit “exclusively or even primarily in terms of correcting the child’s disability”—that is, focusing narrowly on “disability remediation” in one domain (e.g., writing) while ignoring overall academic success.

NEISD attempted to invoke Hovem to argue that the district court here improperly emphasized “remediating” I.M.’s disability (his behavioral issues) rather than his academic progress. The Fifth Circuit rejected that reading:

• Hovem explicitly distinguished cases where the child regressed or could not meet grade‑level standards; I.M. is firmly in that category.
• The district court in I.M.’s case did not focus exclusively on behavior; it weighed academic gains against significant nonacademic regression and safety threats, which is the type of holistic analysis Hovem demands.

Thus, North East ISD v. I.M. clarifies that Hovem does not prohibit robust consideration of behavioral safety and independence when those issues materially affect whether FAPE is being delivered.

5. Other Fifth Circuit Decisions: A.A., H.W., Adam J.

The panel also referenced several other decisions to emphasize:

• A.A. ex rel. K.K. v. Northside ISD, 951 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2020): The fourth Michael F. factor requires examining both academic and nonacademic benefits.
• H.W. ex rel. Jennie W. v. Comal ISD, 32 F.4th 454 (5th Cir. 2022): FAPE determinations must be “fact‑intensive, individualized, [and] holistic,” and “no one factor can overwhelm” the analysis.
• Adam J. ex rel. Robert J. v. Keller ISD, 328 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2003): Academic benefit “militates” (has weight) in favor of IEP appropriateness, but is not dispositive by itself.

These cases collectively reinforce that academic gains are important, but they do not automatically validate an IEP when other serious deficiencies exist.

6. Distinguishing the Eighth Circuit’s Lathrop R‑II School District v. Gray

NEISD also relied on the Eighth Circuit’s Lathrop R‑II Sch. Dist. v. Gray, 611 F.3d 419 (8th Cir. 2010), which applied a standard that focuses heavily on whether the district made a “good faith effort” and suggests that even if more positive behavioral interventions could have been employed, that may be “largely irrelevant” if the district tried to help the student achieve goals.

The Fifth Circuit declined to adopt or follow that approach, distinguishing Gray on two grounds:

1. Different legal standard.
   The Eighth Circuit’s “good faith” lens diverges from the Fifth Circuit’s Michael F. framework and from Endrew F., which centers on the substantive adequacy of progress rather than the district’s intentions. The Fifth Circuit explicitly noted that quoting the Eighth Circuit approach in a footnote to an unpublished case did not elevate it to binding circuit law.
2. Different facts and severity.
   The behaviors in Gray (biting, loud outbursts, some sexual behavior) were disruptive but not as acutely life‑threatening as I.M.’s repeated elopement into traffic and numerous toileting incidents. The more dangerous and pervasive behaviors in I.M.’s case demanded a more robust and targeted response.

By distinguishing Gray, the Fifth Circuit implicitly reaffirmed that in this circuit, results and appropriateness of progress—not good faith alone—determine FAPE adequacy.

V. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

A. Factor 1: Insufficient Individualization of the IEP

Under § 1414(d)(3)(B)(i), IEP teams must consider whether the child’s behavior impedes learning and, if so, must consider appropriate “positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies” to address that behavior.

NEISD argued that it had done precisely this: it had a behavior intervention plan, implemented multiple strategies, and collected some data. It pointed to:

• Reduction in elopement during second grade (from 83% to 23% of school days).
• Improvements in toileting with visuals and structured routines.

The Fifth Circuit did not deny these efforts but agreed with the district court that they were not enough for two key reasons:

1. The district had documented knowledge that breaks caused regression.
   The IEP team concluded—and wrote into the record—that I.M. had a “documented history of regression” during breaks, particularly in behavior and independence (toileting). This included data showing:
   • Post‑break spikes in elopement and toileting incidents.
   • Worsening behavior after summer, winter, and spring breaks despite in‑year improvements.
   The team recognized that ESY addressed this regression and expanded ESY from three to six weeks. Despite that, I.M. continued to regress severely after the remaining gap before the new school year and after shorter breaks.
2. The district refused to implement the known effective strategy to the necessary extent.
   Critically, NEISD:
   • Conceded that more ESY would help.
   • Nonetheless declined to provide full‑summer, full‑day ESY and declined to extend ESY or comparable supports to other breaks, even as regression continued.
   • Stopped systematically tracking elopement in fourth grade, limiting its ability to understand the full extent of regression despite known serious safety risks.

The court stressed that I.M.’s elopement posed a “present, grave danger” and, together with toileting issues, was not properly controlled by the partial ESY arrangement. The district’s refusal to extend ESY, despite acknowledging its benefit and the continued dangerous regression, rendered the IEP insufficiently individualized.

In short:

The IDEA does not require perfection, but it does require reasonableness in light of the child’s circumstances. Once the district knew what worked (meaningful ESY) and knew that its current level of ESY left serious regression unaddressed, it could not simply “maintain the status quo” without violating the duty to individualize.

B. Factor 4: Academic Gains vs. Nonacademic Regression

The district court found, and the Fifth Circuit accepted, that:

• I.M. made “clear academic progress” and “appropriately progressed, and even mastered” some third‑grade goals.
• However, his behavioral regression—particularly in elopement and toileting—was severe, predictable, and directly linked to interruptions in services.

NEISD argued that once academic benefit is shown, the fourth factor must favor the district. It leaned on language from Hovem that academic success “clearly militates in favor of a finding that an IEP is appropriate.” The Fifth Circuit clarified:

• Academic benefit militates in favor of adequacy—it “has weight or effect”—but is not controlling.
• The Fourth factor demands a holistic inquiry into both academic and nonacademic benefits. No single element, including academic progress, may “overwhelm” the analysis.

Here, the district court found that I.M.’s behavioral regression:

• Occured repeatedly, especially after school breaks.
• Escalated in severity (culminating in a near‑catastrophic elopement across a busy road).
• Directly impeded his ability to access and benefit from academic instruction (constant supervision, time spent in crisis management, safety concerns).

On this record, the district court concluded that the nonacademic regression outweighed academic gains. The Fifth Circuit held that this weighing was reasonable and not clearly erroneous.

C. Rejecting the “Disability Remediation” Critique

NEISD contended that the district court impermissibly focused on “remediating” I.M.’s disability (behavior) instead of educational benefit, in contravention of Hovem. The Fifth Circuit rejected this characterization:

• The district court did not ignore or minimize academic progress; it expressly acknowledged it.
• It then balanced those gains against documented, severe regression in nonacademic domains that are integral to FAPE—safety, independence in toileting, and ability to remain in the school environment without fleeing.
• Such behavioral modifications are not mere “disability remediation” in the abstract; they are necessary to confer educational benefit, as Hovem itself recognizes.

Thus, rather than engaging in impermissible remediation‑only analysis, the district court performed exactly the “holistic” inquiry that Hovem, H.W., and Endrew F. require. The Fifth Circuit endorsed this approach.

D. Deference Under the Clear‑Error Standard

A recurring theme in the opinion is the limits on appellate reweighing of evidence. The Fifth Circuit emphasized:

• The hearing officer and district court both reviewed the same record, heard testimony, and made credibility and weight determinations.
• NEISD’s appellate arguments largely involved proposing a different reading of the same evidence—emphasizing academic progress and partial behavioral improvement, downplaying regression and the severity of elopements.
• Under clear‑error review, the appellate court cannot replace the factfinder’s permissible interpretation of the evidence with its own preferred view.

The court concluded it did not have a “definite and firm conviction” that the district court erred in finding:

• The IEP was insufficiently individualized with respect to known behavioral regression.
• The nonacademic detriments outweighed the academic benefits for purposes of Factor 4.

VI. Complex Concepts Simplified

A. Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)

Under the IDEA, FAPE means special education and related services that:

• Are provided at public expense and under public supervision.
• Meet state standards.
• Include appropriate schooling and related services tailored to the child’s unique needs.
• Are set forth in an IEP that is reasonably calculated to allow appropriate progress.

FAPE centers on whether the child is receiving meaningful educational benefit, not the best possible education.

B. Individualized Education Program (IEP)

An IEP is a written plan developed by:

• School district representatives.
• At least one of the child’s teachers.
• The child’s parents (and, when appropriate, the child).

It must specify:

• Present levels of academic achievement and functional performance.
• Measurable annual goals.
• Special education, related services, and supports (including behavioral interventions) to help the child progress.
• How progress will be measured.

C. Extended-School-Year (ESY) Services

ESY services are special education and related services provided beyond the regular school year, such as summer services or services during long breaks. They are designed primarily to prevent significant regression in skills or behaviors that the child cannot quickly recoup once school resumes.

In practice:

• ESY is not automatic; the IEP team must determine whether it is necessary for FAPE, based on data and the child’s history.
• This case underscores that ESY may be necessary not only for academics, but also to preserve critical behavioral and independence skills, such as safety and toileting.

D. Elopement

“Elopement” in the special education context means leaving a supervised, safe space without permission or supervision (e.g., running out of the classroom, leaving campus, or exiting a school bus). For children like I.M., who lack safety awareness and communication, elopement can be:

• Life‑threatening (e.g., running into traffic).
• Educationally debilitating (time lost, disruption, staff diversion).

Effective IEPs must address elopement with proactive strategies, training, and—where necessary—supports across the year, including ESY.

E. “Disability Remediation” vs. Educational Benefit

“Disability remediation” refers to efforts to reduce the disabling condition itself (for example, attempts to cure or fully eliminate a learning disability) rather than focusing on whether the student is receiving meaningful educational benefit.

The Fifth Circuit in Hovem warned that courts should not judge IEPs solely by the degree to which they “fix” the disability. However:

• Many supports that might be labeled “remediation” (e.g., behavior modification, specialized reading instruction) are necessary to provide educational benefit.
• The danger is only when courts ignore overall progress and focus narrowly on one symptom or deficit.

In North East ISD v. I.M., the district court did not fall into this trap: it weighed both academic progress and behavioral regression, treating both as central to FAPE.

F. Clear Error Review

“Clear error” is a highly deferential standard of review:

• The appellate court must uphold the lower court’s factual findings unless it is firmly convinced a mistake was made.
• If the evidence can reasonably support two different interpretations, the appellate court must defer to the district court’s choice between them.

NEISD’s failure to meet this demanding standard played a decisive role in the outcome.

VII. Impact and Implications

A. For School Districts and IEP Teams

1. ESY Must Be Data‑Driven and Robust Enough to Prevent Known Regression.
   If a district’s own data show that:
   • The child regresses over breaks in key areas (especially safety and independence), and
   • ESY meaningfully reduces that regression,
   then:
   • The district cannot simply provide a minimal ESY model (e.g., short duration, half‑days) if that model leaves significant, predictable, dangerous regression unaddressed.
   • The district must seriously consider whether full‑summer, full‑day, or even break‑spanning services are necessary, and document its reasoning carefully.
2. Behavior and Safety Are Core, Not Peripheral, to FAPE.
   Behaviors such as elopement and toileting are not mere side‑issues. Where behavior:
   • Threatens the student’s physical safety, or
   • Prevents consistent participation in learning,
   addressing it becomes central to FAPE. This decision underscores that:
   • IEP teams must treat safety‑related behaviors as critical goals.
   • Failure to sufficiently address them can invalidate the IEP, even in the face of academic progress.
3. Data Collection Must Be Consistent, Especially for Severe Behaviors.
   The court noted that NEISD “stopped systematically tracking elopement” in fourth grade, despite the obvious gravity of the problem. That omission undercut the district’s position:
   • Districts should implement consistent data collection for key behaviors, especially those influencing ESY decisions.
   • Gaps in data cannot be used to obscure or downplay known issues.
4. Collaboration with Parents Requires Responsiveness to Substantiated Concerns.
   Although Factors 2 and 3 were not contested here, the opinion highlights repeated parental concern about regression and safety:
   • IEP teams must engage substantively with parent concerns, especially when supported by data.
   • Repeatedly denying reasonable requests (like expanded ESY) when the district’s own data corroborate the requests increases litigation risk.

B. For Advocates and Families

The decision provides several litigation and advocacy touchpoints:

• Documented Regression + Effective ESY = Strong Claim.
  If a child’s regression over breaks is well‑documented and ESY or comparable supports demonstrably reduce that regression, advocates can argue that failure to offer adequate ESY violates FAPE.
• Nonacademic Domains Matter.
  Families should gather evidence not only of academic struggles, but also of:
  • Safety incidents (e.g., elopement into dangerous environments).
  • Self‑help and independence skills (e.g., toileting, self‑care).
  • Behavioral crises that impede access to education.
  These can be just as legally significant as poor grades.
• Deference to Hearing Officers Can Work in Parents’ Favor.
  When parents prevail at due process and district court, the substantial deference on factual findings makes reversal on appeal difficult, as seen here.

C. For the Development of IDEA Law in the Fifth Circuit

North East ISD v. I.M. extends and refines Fifth Circuit IDEA jurisprudence in several ways:

• It confirms that Severe behavioral regression can independently render an IEP inappropriate, even when the student is making some academic progress.
• It clarifies that Hovem does not bar courts from giving significant weight to behavior and safety; “disability remediation” is only an error when it crowds out holistic evaluation.
• It implicitly rejects a “good faith effort” test (like that used in the Eighth Circuit) in favor of a more outcome‑oriented inquiry based on Endrew F. and the Michael F. factors.
• It reinforces Boone’s teaching that elopement must be concretely and effectively addressed in IEPs when it is a major issue.

VIII. Conclusion

North East ISD v. I.M. stands for a clear and consequential principle: academic progress cannot excuse a school district’s failure to address severe, life‑threatening behavioral regression that it knows how to mitigate. Where a district’s own data reveal that interruptions in service cause dangerous regression—and where extended-school-year services are known to be effective—limiting ESY for reasons of perceived “sufficiency” rather than actual need will not satisfy the IDEA’s requirement of a free appropriate public education.

The decision emphasizes that:

• FAPE is a holistic concept that encompasses both academic and nonacademic domains.
• Safety, independence, and functional behavior are integral to educational benefit, not optional extras.
• IEPs must be responsive to the child’s documented history and to what the district already knows works to prevent regression.

By affirming the hearing officer and the district court, the Fifth Circuit underscores the IDEA’s core promise: that every child with a disability is entitled not merely to procedural compliance or good‑faith effort, but to a substantively appropriate educational program tailored to their unique circumstances, including the real risks they face inside and outside the classroom.