The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has declared that “Prior decisions of this Court are consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Endrew F.,” the 2017 Supreme Court decision interpreting the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act obligation to furnish students with disabilities free, appropriate public education. This Essay considers whether that statement is accurate, and concludes that while some of the past Second Circuit decisions fit comfortably with Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, others do not. The Essay submits that the court of appeals should confess a lack of clairvoyance in its earlier decisions and forthrightly overrule or limit those cases that are not consistent with the interpretation of the appropriate education duty found in Endrew F.