According to the IDEA, “the term ‘special education’ means specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings…(IDEA, 20 USC § 29). The regulations to the IDEA add that  “Specially designed instruction (SDI) refers to adapting the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs of a child with a disability that result from the child’s disability, and to ensure access to the general education curriculum so the child can meet educational standards (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 39[b][3]). The two primary components of SDI are: (a) individualization, meaning the SDI has to be targeted toward meeting a student’s educational needs; and (b) adaptation, meaning the SDI involves changes to content, teaching strategies, or delivery methods.

A recent case out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit showed the limits of using accommodations when programming for students with disabilities. The case, William A. v. Clarksville-Montgomery County School System (2025), addressed a school district’s failure to meet the specific reading needs of a student, thus denying the student a FAPE under the IDEA. This case further underscores that even the best-intended and most well-used accommodations cannot and should not take the place of SDI.

The case involved William A., a student with a learning disability, who graduated from high school with a 3.4 grade point average despite not being able to read. William began attending the Clarksville-Montgomery County School System in Tennessee when he was in fifth grade. Soon thereafter, he was identified as having a learning disability and was determined to be eligible for special education. An IEP was developed for him that included six hours of individualized instruction in reading, writing, math. William also received speech and language services. Several accommodations, such as extended time to take tests, were also provided. Every year, the IEP team, which included William’s parents, reviewed his IEP. When William entered middle school, his IEP remained largely unchanged. Unfortunately, his reading skills also remain largely unchanged.

When William entered high school, his special education teacher expressed a concern that he was not making progress in reading. She wrote to school administrators that ”this kid can’t read.” William performed fairly well in school but made no progress toward his reading goals. His IEP was rewritten to include accommodations, including the use of technology programs that read printed text to him and helped with his writing. When William was in eleventh grade, a teacher suggested that he may have dyslexia. His mother asked the school to evaluate William and from the testing, a school psychologist confirmed that he did have dyslexia. His parents arranged for William to have private tutoring, where he received instruction in basic reading skills. He progressed well in the program, and his tutor suggested to William’s IEP team that the school continue the program. School-based personnel rejected this idea and suggested that William continue with his current reading goal and the accommodations that he was receiving. Although the parents signed the IEP, they believed William was not receiving all the supports he needed to be successful. In March 2023, the parents filed for a due process hearing, asserting that the school district had failed to offer William a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and also raising discrimination claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ). One of the parents’ experts testified that the foundation of the ability to read lies in the mastery of basic decoding and encoding skills, and until a student masters these basic skills, they cannot master more advanced reading skills, like fluency, which was the focus of William’s IEPs. The ALJ focused on two questions in deciding this case. First, whether William could learn to read, and second, if teaching William to read required something different than what his IEPs provided. The ALJ answered yes to both questions and held that the school district had denied William a FAPE as required by the IDEA and violated his rights under Section 504 and the ADA. He also ordered the school to provide William with 888 hours of tutoring by a trained reading interventionist.

A month later, the parents appealed to the U.S. District Court seeking to have the tutoring provided by the same tutor who had worked with William. The school district filed a counterclaim seeking reversal of the ALJ’s order. The district court judge reached the same conclusion as did the ALJ that William had been denied a FAPE and that he was entitled to the 888 hours of compensatory education to help him learn to read. The district court denied the parents’ request regarding the tutor.

The parents appealed the districts court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The school again challenged the district court’s decision that William was denied a FAPE. The circuit court noted that the IDEA required the school to provide SDI to students covered by the IDEA and, quoting the U.S. Supreme Court in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 (hereinafter Endrew F., 2017), that the school did not offer and IEP “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” (Endrew F., 2017,399).

The judges reasoned that the IEP developed by the Clarksville-Montgomery County School System was not tailored to his circumstances because his IEP focused on fluency while failing to teach him to read. The school argued that because William maintained a 3.0 grade point average and passed from grade to grade, he did receive a FAPE. However, the court again cited Endrew F. in noted that just because students with disabilities are advancing from grade to grade does not mean they are receiving a FAPE. According to the court, William’s most salient circumstance was that he could learn to read if given appropriate instruction, and that the accommodations he received for reading simply masked his inability to read. The court agreed with the school that the IDEA does not guarantee any particular outcome, such as learning to read, but when a student is capable of learning to read and the IEP does not aim to help him to overcome his particular obstacles to doing so, that IEP does not provide him with the ‘free appropriate public education’ to which is entitled. Such was the case here (p. 6).

There are several reasons that William A. v. Clarksville-Montgomery County School System has great significance for special education. First, this ruling comes from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Circuit courts are only under the U.S. Supreme Court in importance. This ruling will be followed by hearing officers, ALJs, and lower courts in the states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Other circuit courts may be persuaded to follow this ruling in similar cases in its jurisdictions. Second, the case stresses the importance of following the procedural requirements of the IDEA, especially those involving a student’s parent(s) or guardian(s) in the special education decision-making process. Third, the decision highlighted the importance of considering a parental obtained evaluation or an independent educational evaluation. If such evaluations are rejected, there must be a solid reason for doing so. Fourth, as the Supreme Court emphasized, the essential function of a student’s IEP is to set out an individualized plan that enables a student to make progress appropriate in light of their circumstances.