## Facts

- Christopher Polk, a child with severe mental and physical impairments, was eligible for special education services under the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA).
- His parents challenged the adequacy of his individualized education program (IEP), alleging it failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) because it lacked sufficient direct, hands-on physical therapy from a licensed physical therapist.
- Christopher previously received more direct physical therapy, but the educational authorities shifted to a “consultative model,” where a physical therapist trained and advised the teacher rather than providing weekly direct therapy to Christopher.
- The parents contended the consultative model was not tailored to Christopher’s needs and hindered his progress toward IEP goals.
- After administrative proceedings, the parents sued in federal district court.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, reasoning that because Christopher obtained “some educational benefit,” the EHA was satisfied under Board of Education v. Rowley.
- The parents appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether there was a genuine factual dispute that defendants used a blanket policy refusing to consider direct physical therapy by a licensed physical therapist, violating the EHA’s IEP individualization requirements.
2. Whether the district court applied an incorrect substantive FAPE standard by treating “some educational benefit” as allowing trivial progress.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held the record presented a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants categorically refused to consider direct physical therapy, contrary to the EHA’s requirement that services be individualized through the IEP process.
- The court held the district court applied the wrong substantive standard by equating FAPE with any benefit, even trivial advancement.
- The court stated the EHA requires an educational program reasonably calculated to confer meaningful educational benefit, particularly for a severely disabled child, and the record could support a finding of only trivial progress under the challenged program.

## Legal Principles

- The EHA’s procedural protections require an IEP tailored to the individual child; categorical policies that preclude consideration of particular related services can violate the statute.
- “Some educational benefit” under Rowley cannot be reduced to a minimal or trivial-benefit test, especially when evaluating programs for severely disabled students.
- A FAPE under the EHA must be reasonably calculated to provide meaningful (not de minimis) educational benefit in light of the child’s circumstances.
- Summary judgment is inappropriate where evidence would allow a factfinder to conclude the child’s program produced only trivial progress toward IEP goals or where a disputed blanket practice may have displaced individualized decisionmaking.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit required individualized consideration of related services such as direct physical therapy and rejected a FAPE standard that tolerates merely trivial progress, remanding for further proceedings under a meaningful-benefit standard and to resolve whether defendants applied an impermissible blanket refusal.


Polk v. Cent. Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16, 853 F.2d 171 (3d Cir. 1988)