back to "The Courts"
Federal Judge’s Special-Ed Ruling was Incomplete
Ruling: A lawsuit involving a child with dyslexia is returned to the trial judge because the judge concluded that the student qualifies as a “child with a disability” without also determining whether the student needs special-ed services. W.V., et al., v. Copperas Cove ISD, No. 19-50051. Issued Aug. 8. Ordered “not published” for precedent citing purposes.
The parents of CCISD student W.V. sued on claims that the district failed to provide their son with an individualized education plan (IEP) in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
A three-member Fifth Circuit panel unanimously ruled that the judge complied with only the first part of a two-part test for determining whether the district is required to provide the student with an IEP by only ruling that W.V. qualified under IDEA as a “child with a disability” simply because dyslexia qualifies as a specific learning disability.
The judge did to comply with the second part of the IDEA requirement by failing to rule on whether the student needs special-ed services, the justices noted.
It could be possible, the justices concluded, for a child to be determined to be a “child with a disability” under IDEA without the student needing special-ed services. For instance, a child with a disability might not need special-ed services and could instead make educational progress via the provision of “related services” — such as by being educated in regular classrooms and receiving only minor accommodations, the justices added.
The justices sent the litigation back to the trial judge to specifically rule on whether the student was making progress under the accommodations provided to him by CCISD, and whether those accommodations are adequate.