Facts: The student had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) through a private evaluation. The evaluation did not determine that the student had a learning disability. The district then conducted a full and individual evaluation (FIE) sought by the parent to determine eligibility for a learning disability in reading and for an “other health impairment” (OHI) designation to address the ADHD diagnosis. The FIE found the student eligible as a student with a specific learning disability in basic reading skills and reading comprehension, and OHI due to ADHD. The parent obtained a private consult for tutoring and reading therapy services. The student also underwent a private dyslexia evaluation, which concluded that the student displayed characteristics of dyslexia. Several ARD committee meetings convened that were requested by the parent and modifications were made to the student’s accommodations and program. However, disagreements arose concerning whether the district addressed all of the student’s needs. The parent requested a due process hearing, claiming that the district did not address the student’s needs both procedurally and substantively, and as a result, the district denied the student FAPE.
Holding: The hearing officer concluded that the district had denied the student FAPE. The student’s special education instruction for dyslexia did not include measurable goals and objectives. The student’s special education programming did not include sufficient special education instruction. In addition, the student’s IEP did not provide sufficient dyslexia services. According to the hearing officer, the student’s special education instruction ultimately did not provide the student with meaningful benefit. As a result, the hearing officer ordered compensatory services, including one-on-one tutoring by a dyslexia specialist and a specialized program meeting the requirements of the Texas Education Agency’s publication, The Dyslexia Handbook.