back to The Courts

U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
Parents Lose Appeal Over Special-Ed Issues
Despite ISD’s “Procedural Violation” of IDEA
Ruling: Although an ISD’s failure to formally classify a student as having a learning disability was a “procedural violation” of federal special-ed law, the district made up for it by providing the student with the appropriate educational services he needed. W.V., et al., v. Copperas Cove ISD, No. 19-51046. Issued Sept. 14. Ordered “not published.”

When student W.V. entered CCISD as a first grader, the district continued to implement an individualized education program (IEP) his prior school had developed to treat his speech impairment.

But, the district refused the parents’ request to evaluate him for a “specific learning disability” (SLD) which would have required the district to provide education services if he were found to have had a SLD.

The district did, however, test — and eventually treat — W.V. for dyslexia. Upon starting second grade, the district began providing W.V. dyslexia assistance using the “Wilson Reading System” — but later that fall, after reviewing W.V.’s performance in speech, reading and cognitive capability, the district found that W.V. was no longer eligible for speech therapy and that his reading scores had improved consistent with his dyslexia counseling.

The parents sued on claims that the dyslexia program was not research based, and that the services provided for W.V. did not result in him being on grade level, as reflected on standardized tests. They appealed to the Fifth Circuit after the trial judge dismissed the suit.

“Basic Floor of Opportunity”
A three-member Fifth Circuit panel, in this decision, upheld rulings by the trial judge that CCISD had met its burden under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to provide at least a “basic floor of opportunity” to students designed to achieve “meaningful,” but not “de minimis” (insignificant) progress.

The justices accepted the prior rulings that CCISD had met its burden under IDEA in regards to W.V. by showing that the student had made the amount of academic progress required by IDEA. In IDEA, a student’s development must be measured with respect to the student, and not other students, the justices noted.