In a recent blog (June 3rd), we addressed a case out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, William A. v. Clarksville-Montgomery County Schools System (2005). As a reminder, this case involved William A., a young boy with dyslexia who received language therapy and accommodations. However, William made little or no progress in reading fluency over a period of years. Nevertheless, because William received good grades, the school proposed the same approach. Sixth Circuit affirmed an award of 888 hours of compensatory tutoring.

This case also has some important lessons regarding Section 504 accommodations.

First, an important distinction is necessary: the Sixth Circuit’s decision itself primarily decided William’s IDEA and compensatory-education claim. The related Section 504/ADA litigation continued separately. We would not teach William A. as a Sixth Circuit holding that “Section 504 requires specialized reading instruction.”

However, as this case shows, sometimes accommodations are not enough.

For educators, their first important Section 504 lesson is that access is not necessarily the same as meaningful educational support. Providing accommodations, such as extended time, having material read aloud, or other methods of accessing instruction, does not necessarily address the student’s underlying disability-related educational need. When a student needs specialized instruction or intervention to learn a skill, merely accommodating the inability to perform that skill may be inadequate.

The second lesson is that schools must respond when the evidence shows that the current program is ineffective. Section 504 teams should periodically examine whether accommodations continue to meet the student’s individual needs. Evidence of persistent failure to acquire a fundamental skill should prompt the team to reconsider the student’s evaluation, services, accommodations, and possibly IDEA eligibility and services rather than simply renewing the existing plan.

For a Section 504 coordinator, William A. is therefore a useful case to emphasize that teams should look beyond grades, monitor actual progress, respond when accommodations are ineffective, consider whether additional evaluation is necessary, and determine whether a student needs specially designed instruction under IDEA rather than accommodations alone.