West Virginia Record | Kanawha man files educational malpractice suit

In West Virginia, a man has filed an educational malpractice suit.

Thomas P. Sturm has a high school diploma from Sissonville High School (previously sued by Katie Sierra ) that he says is worthless.  He has filed suit because

1. He is functionally illiterate
2. His Individual Education Plan (IEP) was not followed
3. The school failed to prepare him for life as an adult

"I don't think there's any really serious question that the regulations and guidelines and statutes were not followed in this case," said Michael T. Clifford, Sturm's attorney. "The fact that he has a high school diploma when he's functionally illiterate and already on (Supplemental Security Income) speaks for itself."

West Virginia Code states that a school is responsible for making sure no one who is functionally illiterate graduates high school

Clifford says an administrative law judge with the Social Security Administration has declared Sturm functionally illiterate.

School Board attorney Jim Withrow says he hasn't been served a copy of the case yet, though he says educational malpractice cases haven't usually been successful in other areas of the country.

"I haven't received a copy yet," he said. "I guess he's asserting he wasn't provided appropriate educational services."

This could be an interesting wrinkle in educational law.

 

Comments

[Lisa]

Interesting concept. I can't imagine that there is legal precedent for awarding damages in this sort of case. What would be the standard of proof? And how exactly would a school defend against such a suit? Would the school's attorney, for example, be able to admit uncompleted homework or classwork, or even attendance and disciplinary records, as evidence that the plaintiff didn't take sufficient advantage of what was offered? Would it all hinge on whether there was an IEP that wasn't followed? If so, I wonder if that would discourage schools from filing IEPs in the first place, reasoning that if they state the student's needs in writing, it could be used against them later on in court.

I also wonder how they would calculate "lost earnings" considering a job market in which even literate college graduates can have a hard time finding work.

I don't know. As much as it's clear to me that the school failed this individual and that he has a right to be angry, I'm uncomfortable with the theory that every single child is must end up with the same level of skill and earning potential (and what about all those gifted artists and skilled workers whose fields have little to do with what they were taught in school?). I can easily imagine a scenario in which a moderately disabled child wants to attend high school with his or her peers, but is discouraged from doing so because the current level of skill is that of a functionally illiterate person, and the school doesn't want to be sued. It could end up backfiring and discouraging inclusion of special needs students whom schools have pegged as not being able to complete all the requirements.

I guess it all hinges on whether the law is designed to exclude students with low skills from achieving diplomas, or is attempting to force school districts to implement better reading programs or at least retain students who aren't meeting standards.