## Facts

- James A. Hall IV, a student of above-average intelligence, had dyslexia that severely impaired reading.
- From early elementary grades in Vance County public schools, testing indicated serious reading deficits and recommended specialized evaluation and intervention.
- The school system delayed and provided limited special-education services; Hall’s individualized education program (IEP) largely consisted of only part-time instruction in a learning-disabilities setting.
- Despite years in the program, Hall made minimal progress and was described as “functionally illiterate” by about age eleven.
- Hall’s parents unilaterally enrolled him in a private school specializing in educating dyslexic students, where he made substantial progress.
- The parents sought reimbursement for private-school costs already incurred and public funding for continued private placement.

## Issues

1. Whether the school district and state education defendants failed to provide Hall a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) and parallel state law, particularly before January 1982.
2. Whether the EAHCA authorizes a court to order (a) reimbursement for parents’ unilateral private-school expenditures and (b) prospective payment of private-school tuition and fees when the public program denied FAPE.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court in full.
- The court upheld the finding that Hall was denied FAPE prior to January 1982.
- The court held the district court had equitable authority under the EAHCA to:
  - Order reimbursement for the parents’ past private-school expenses; and
  - Require the school district to pay Hall’s private-school tuition and fees for the 1983–84 school year.
- The court relied on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of remedial authority under the EAHCA in Burlington School Committee v. Department of Education.

## Legal Principles

- A FAPE requires an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to receive educational benefits; persistent lack of meaningful progress may show the program is substantively inadequate.
- Courts may grant equitable relief under the EAHCA to remedy a denial of FAPE, including reimbursement for unilateral private placement when the public placement violated the statute and the private placement is appropriate.
- Prospective funding of an appropriate private placement may be ordered when needed to secure the child’s entitlement to FAPE.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit concluded that the public program failed to provide Hall a FAPE and that equitable relief under the EAHCA permitted both reimbursement for the parents’ unilateral private-school costs and an order requiring the district to fund an appropriate private placement for the specified school year.


Hall v. Vance Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 774 F.2d 629 (4th Cir. 1985)