Like all states, Tennessee serves its public school students with disabilities through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).¹ The IDEA requires local school districts to develop a written “individualized education program” (IEP) for each student with a disability.² The “centerpiece” of special education,³ these IEPS must address the student’s needs, including any need for “assistive technology devices.”⁴

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI), like ChatGPT, creates an intriguing issue for students with disabilities: Is AI “assistive” to learning? Or is it a “replacement” for learning? In W.A. v. Clarksville Montgomery County School System, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee heard the first case of this kind.⁵

Throughout his education, W.A. received IEPs for his severe dyslexia. Tragically, those IEPs focused on fluency and comprehension without first teaching W.A. the more basic, foundational skill of how to read. By his senior year in high school, W.A. still could not consistently spell his own name.⁶

Despite W.A.’s total illiteracy, the school district had W.A. “on pace to graduate successfully with a 3.4 GPA.”⁷ How was that possible? W.A. was certainly capable of absorbing spoken information — he just could not read or write. An industrious student, W.A. was relying entirely on technology. As Middle District Judge Aleta Trauger recounted:

W.A. can speak the words of a topic such as "George Washington" into a Word document by using speech to text software. He can then paste that written word, "George Washington," into an artificial intelligence bot, such as Chat GPT . . . The artificial intelligence bot can create a paper about the subject matter, here George Washington, that W.A. can highlight and paste back into a Word document. W.A. can then run the Word document through another software program, Grammarly, which will create a demeanor or style (e.g., business, informal paper, graduate level, undergraduate level or essay). Where words appear as underlined for being contextually inappropriate, W.A. would click and change them per the software's suggestion, although he would not understand the changes being made by the software, or whether they were actually grammatically appropriate. W.A. will next use read-aloud software to read him the newly fashioned Word document, and he then would change items that he was not satisfied with or that "didn't sound right." At that point, if Word notes grammatical errors, W.A. can again click to make automatic changes that would be inserted by the software. Once the product is finished, W.A. cannot read it himself — he again would listen to the read-aloud software.⁸

The legal question remained: Is that real learning? Or was it an overuse of technology that defeats learning? In other words, was the technology helping or hurting W.A.?

The school district’s chief witness acknowledged that technology must not become a “mask” or a “substitute” for W.A.’s actual learning.⁹ And in this case, the court found that “complex technological workarounds . . . allowed him to bypass the need for reading and writing skills.”¹⁰

In the end, the school district violated the IDEA by not providing appropriate instruction for W.A. to become literate, substituting “a system of accommodations so sweeping that it makes the severity of his disability hard to notice.”¹¹ For a remedy, the school district was required to provide over 800 hours of re-education with a concentration on basic reading and dyslexia.¹²

Normally, removing an otherwise noticeable disability through technology is considered a good thing. But here, W.A.’s “reading,” his “writing” and his “3.4 grade point average” were not his own. That is, W.A. obtained his remedy by proving that his grades were not real — they were artificial. The case reminds educators, parents and students that now, more than ever, what you actually learn may be quite different than what your papers show.

Justin S. Gilbert is a lawyer in Chattanooga at Gilbert Law PLC. He practices education law for students with disabilities. Sophie Bruce is a former public school student in Tennessee, now an undergraduate student at Arizona State University, with an interest in pursuing law school.

NOTES

1. 20 U.S.C. §1400 et. seq.
2. 20 U.S.C. §1401(9)(D).
3. Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 390 (2017).
4. 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(B)(v). One common example of assistive technology, among many, is a speech-output device for students with speaking challenges. Similar to an iPad, it allows the student to touch the words on the screen or construct sentences, the speakers in the device becoming her “voice.”
5. W.A. v. Clarksville/Montgomery Cnty. Sch. Sys., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93311 (M.D. Tenn. May 24, 2024).
6. Id. at *17, fn 3 (“This fact is confirmed by W.A.’s signatures, including the signature of his proposed 12th-grade IEP.”). Although too late for W.A., Tennessee has more recently tackled its reading crisis through the Tennessee Literacy Success Act, which includes foundational literacy skills. Tenn. Code Ann. §49-1-905 et. seq.
7. Id.
8. Id. at *10-11.
9. Id. at *18.
10. Id. at *38.
11. Id. at *41.
12. Id. at *43.