The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act grants dissatisfied parents of students with disabilities the right to pursue legal remedies. In 2007, Rose and Zirkel found that parents of students with reading disabilities seeking Orton-Gillingham (OG) instruction under the IDEA’s central obligation for a free appropriate public education (FAPE) were largely unsuccessful in their complaints. Since that review, various factors had the potential to influence the frequency and outcomes of OG-related case law—namely, the peer-reviewed research requirement of the IDEA and growing awareness of the need for specialized reading instruction. Our updated analysis of OG-related case law revealed an increase in the number of cases but similar district-favored outcomes identified by Rose and Zirkel. In particular, the relaxed substantive FAPE standard and deference to local and state authorities diminished the likelihood of parents prevailing in their requests. Implications for parents, school district personnel, special education professionals, and education researchers are presented.

《残疾人教育法》赋予对残疾学生不满的父母寻求法律补救的权利。2007 年，Rose 和 Zirkel 发现，阅读障碍学生的家长根据 IDEA 的免费适当公共教育 (FAPE) 的核心义务寻求 Orton-Gillingham (OG) 指导，但他们的投诉基本上没有成功。自那次审查以来，各种因素都有可能影响与 OG 相关的判例法的频率和结果——即 IDEA 的同行评审研究要求和对专业阅读教学需求的日益认识。我们对 OG 相关判例法的最新分析显示，案件数量有所增加，但 Rose 和 Zirkel 确定的类似地区有利的结果。尤其是，宽松的实质性 FAPE 标准以及对地方和州当局的尊重降低了父母在他们的请求中占上风的可能性。介绍了对家长、学区人员、特殊教育专业人员和教育研究人员的影响。