During the winter of his 11th grade year, William’s parents arranged for him to receive private tutoring from a dyslexia specialist, Dr. Sarah McAfee. Unlike the instruction that William had received in school—which focused on reading fluency—McAfee’s tutoring focused on more basic skills, like alphabetic sequencing and syllable recognition. Under her tutelage, William advanced to the second step of a twelve-step program designed to help dyslexic persons learn to read. That February, McAfee recommended that William continue this program as part of his IEP for the coming year. But the school rejected that idea, proposing instead that William continue with his existing plan.
That was a costly mistake. The existing plan was never going to teach William to read. We know from Supreme Court rulings that we are to craft a student’s IEP based on that student’s unique circumstances. The court describes William’s circumstances:
Apart from his dyslexia itself, William’s most salient “circumstance” for our purposes was that—with proper instruction—he can learn to read. The school has not even tried to prove that finding wrong; yet William graduated from high school without being able to read or even to spell his own name.
A student of adequate intelligence who cannot read has not received the FAPE they were entitled to, despite having a high school diploma.
This is what the court found
The special education hearing officer in Tennessee held that the district failed to provide a FAPE to this student. The federal district court affirmed that decision. Then the school district appealed the decision to the 6th Circuit. The 6th Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling. The district owes the plaintiff 888 hours of compensatory educational services to help this young man learn to read. Meanwhile, the parents are seeking recovery of attorneys’ fees to the tune of $266,967.