Required Action When Progress Is Not Demonstrated

When data does not demonstrate meaningful progress, or when a student’s access to educational programs and services is limited, the IEP Team has an affirmative legal obligation to promptly review and revise the student’s educational program.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the IEP must be revised to address:

“any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals”
(34 C.F.R. § 300.324(b)(1)(ii))

Required Data-Driven Response

Educational decisions must be grounded in objective, measurable, and reliable data.

When progress is not demonstrated:

• Instruction must be reviewed and adjusted based on current performance data

• Interventions must be revised or replaced when not effective

• Services and supports must be realigned to identified needs

• Progress monitoring must be ongoing and sufficiently sensitive to detect change over time

Continuation of instruction, interventions, or services without evidence of effectiveness is not consistent with IDEA requirements.

Educational programs must be:

reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances
(Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District)

Failure to Respond to Lack of Progress

Failure to revise a program in response to a lack of progress:

• Undermines the appropriateness of the IEP

• Delays the identification and implementation of necessary supports

• Interferes with the provision of Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)

A lack of progress is not a neutral outcome—it is a clear indicator that the current program is not effective.

Common Practices That May Limit Progress

In practice, lack of progress often occurs when educational decisions are not sufficiently responsive to objective data.

Concerns may include:

• Continuing the same instruction or interventions despite lack of measurable progress

• Relying on observations, checklists, or general statements without objective data

• Maintaining goals that reflect minimal progress or maintenance rather than growth

• Failing to adjust services or supports when data does not demonstrate effectiveness

• Making decisions without longitudinal data demonstrating change over time

These practices result in programming that is not appropriately designed to produce meaningful progress.

Equal Access and Educational Benefit (ADA and Section 504)

Under the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), public schools must ensure that students with disabilities are provided an equal opportunity to access and benefit from educational programs and services.

When:

• Progress is not demonstrated, or

• Supports are not effectively aligned to the student’s needs

the student’s ability to access and benefit from education on an equal basis with peers is limited.

Providing services that are ineffective in practice may result in a denial of equal access, even if services are formally in place.

Consequences of Inaction

Failure to respond to a lack of progress with timely, data-driven revisions results in:

• Educational programs that are not appropriately aligned to the student’s needs

• Continued use of ineffective instruction or interventions

• Reduced opportunity to make meaningful educational progress

• Limitations on access to educational benefit under Section 504 and the ADA

Enforcement Standard

Failure to revise an educational program in response to a lack of progress may constitute a violation of IDEA.

A violation may result in a denial of FAPE if it:

• Impedes the student’s right to an appropriate educational program,

• Affects the provision of educational benefit, or

• Impacts the parent’s ability to participate in educational decision-making

(34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(2))

Failure to provide effective, data-driven programming may also constitute a denial of equal access to educational benefits under the ADA and Section 504.

Core Principles

A lack of progress is not a basis to maintain the current program—it is a trigger for immediate, data-driven change. 

Under Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, the Supreme Court emphasized that minimal progress is not sufficient: 

"When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing “merely more than de minimis” progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all. "