Guardians’ Contributions to Development of IEPs Must be Considered, Says Court
Win in Parents’ Fight for Educational Needs of Child with Dyslexia
A recent Order by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in Rogich v. Clark County School District will reimburse parents $456,990.60 in costs and damages (exclusive of attorney fees) for a school district’s failure to provide an appropriate Individual Education Plan (IEP) for a student with dyslexia. This failure amounted to a violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”). During the events leading to the lawsuit, the parents provided specific, research-based suggestions and expert evaluations to the school, which were ignored. In fact, the school’s only response to parents’ requests for specialized instruction for their child was to tell the parents to “trust [the school] to provide [the student] with what she needs.” In 2015, a neuropsychologist evaluating the student recommended using the Orton-Gillingham methodology for the student during instruction in all school subjects. This methodology is a sensory-based, multidisciplinary approach to instruction that is effective for students with dyslexia and other learning, sensory processing, and language processing difficulties. Prior to the litigation, the parents offered to pay for Clark County teachers to be trained in Orton-Gillingham methods. The district declined their offer.
Following a multi-year administrative and legal battle, the family was finally heard before the Northern District of Nevada in an evidentiary hearing on February 12, 2019 and presented expert evidence regarding the Orton-Gillingham methodology. The Court held that this methodology or similar methodologies were prevalent and accepted in terms of use by other districts and schools throughout the region. On October 12, 2021, Judge Richard F. Boulware II’s decision noted, “[t]he Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) guarantees children with disabilities a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”). 20 U.S.C. Section 1400(d)(1)(A).” His decision went on to hold that, when constructing an IEP, a school should not only focus on procedural and substantive compliance with IDEA but must also allow the process to be “informed by the expertise of school officials…and also the child’s parents or guardians.” The Court relied heavily upon the case M.C. v. Antelope Valley out of the Ninth Circuit, which explored the necessity under IDEA of including “evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child,” in IEP development.
The Court also noted the reasonableness of costs associated with teacher training in the Orton-Gillingham method, which requires “one week of training at a cost of between $1,500 and $2,000, after which the trainee must complete a practicum of 36-60 hours of supervised one-on-one time with a student at an additional cost, that may be completed up to a year after the training.” The Judge noted that “this training and the associated methodologies would have benefited many other students, including those with dyslexia, and could have been easily disseminated throughout the District[.]” In this case, the IDEA was held to require a “specific methodology” in order to provide a student with a FAPE and to avoid contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”). When presented with direct evidence that this method of teaching was required, refusal to accommodate the student amounted to “deliberate indifference[,]” and thus a violation of Title II of the ADA and Section 504.
Through this and similar decisions, parents and guardians should feel empowered to speak up when school administrators deny their research-backed requests for particular methods proven to work for their students with disabilities. When schools refuse, it is important to contact a skilled education attorney to navigate this changing legal landscape.