The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 20 USC § 1400; A “free appropriate public education”; §§ 1401(29) & 1412(a)(1); Endrew F ex rel Joseph F v Douglas Cnty Sch Dist RE-1; Individualized education plan (IEP); Administrative law judge (ALJ)

The court held that plaintiff-student’s (William) IEP did “not provide him the ‘free appropriate public education’ to which he is entitled” under the IDEA where he graduated from high school unable to read. William, who was diagnosed with a learning disability, met none of his IEP’s fluency goals in reading proficiency from the fifth grade to high school despite receiving speech therapy and one-on-one instruction. In the 11th grade, he was diagnosed with dyslexia. His “parents arranged for him to receive private tutoring from a dyslexia specialist[.]” Defendant-school district rejected her recommendation that William continue with a program designed to help dyslexic persons learn to read as part of his IEP. His parents expressed concern that he was not receiving all the help he needed, and filed an administrative complaint under the IDEA. An ALJ ruled that defendant had deprived William of a “‘free and appropriate public education’” under the IDEA and as compensatory education, ordered it to provide him “with 888 hours of dyslexia tutoring by a trained reading interventionist.” The district court reached the same conclusions as the ALJ and ordered the same relief. On appeal, the court explained that under the IDEA, “the school must offer an [IEP] ‘reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.’” The ALJ and the district court determined that “William’s IEPs were not tailored to his circumstances—because those plans focused on fluency, while bypassing more foundational skills necessary for him to read.” Defendant argued that he did receive his “free and appropriate education” because he was in a general classroom and had over a 3.0 grade average. “But the Supreme Court has never held that ‘every handicapped child advancing from grade to grade’ necessarily receives the free and appropriate education mandated by the IDEA.” The court held that William did not receive the education to which he was entitled. The “most salient ‘circumstance’” here was that he can learn to read, with proper instruction. Defendant did not try “to prove that finding wrong; yet William graduated from high school without being able to read or even to spell his own name. That was because, per the terms of his IEPs, he relied on a host of accommodations that masked his inability to read.” The court concluded that “when a child is capable of learning to read, and his IEP does not aim to help him overcome his particular obstacles to doing so, that IEP does not provide him the ‘free appropriate public education’ to which he is entitled.” Affirmed.