Long Beach District Prevails After Mother's Own Program Changes Hurt Student's Progress

A Long Beach family sought reimbursement for a $21,330 private Lindamood Bell reading program and claimed the district failed to properly assess their son and provide an appropriate education over three school years. The ALJ found the district had assessed the student correctly, provided appropriate IEPs that resulted in measurable educational progress, and gave proper written notice when it declined the reimbursement request. All of the family's requests for relief were denied.

What Happened

Student is a teenager who has received special education services from Long Beach Unified since 1996, originally qualifying due to a speech and language disorder. His areas of difficulty included reading, writing, auditory processing, attention, and language comprehension. Over three school years (2002–2005), the district provided him with a combination of Resource Specialist Program (RSP) services, speech and language support, and a structured study skills class called Strategies for Success (SFS). The district also offered Student a spot in its own Lindamood Bell reading program during the summer of 2005, which showed meaningful improvement in his reading scores.

Parent disagreed with the district's approach and believed Student needed more intensive services. She filed a due process complaint alleging the district had failed to assess him properly in areas including attention, auditory processing, and phonemic awareness; that his IEPs did not allow him to make real educational progress; and that the district violated procedural rules when it refused to reimburse the family for a private 12-week Lindamood Bell program in Newport Beach costing $21,330. The family had enrolled Student in the private clinic at the start of eighth grade instead of returning him to his district school.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor on every issue. On assessments, the ALJ found the district had properly evaluated Student across all areas of suspected disability. The 2001 psychoeducational assessment was thorough and identified his needs in auditory processing, attention, reading, and language. For the 2004 triennial review, the school psychologist reviewed existing records and determined no additional testing was needed — which is legally permitted when existing data is sufficient. The ALJ also found that Parent never requested additional assessments during the years at issue, and that Student's 2005 assessment using the TAPS-UL auditory processing test showed his auditory skills were within average range.

On FAPE, the ALJ found Student made meaningful educational progress each year. His reading level rose from third grade in 2002 to mid-fifth grade by 2004. He met multiple IEP goals in writing, reading comprehension, and language. The ALJ noted that the law does not require year-for-year grade-level progress — only that a student receive a meaningful educational benefit. Critically, the ALJ found that Student's lack of progress during seventh grade was largely caused by Parent's own requests to remove him from the very support services the district had determined he needed. Parent asked that Student be taken out of RSP English, the Strategies for Success class, and other pull-out supports over the course of the school years. When those supports were removed at Parent's request, Student's grades fell.

On reimbursement, the ALJ denied the family's claim because (1) the district had not denied Student a FAPE, which is a required threshold for reimbursement, and (2) the district had its own appropriate Lindamood Bell program — offering the same Visualizing and Verbalizing and Seeing Stars components as the private clinic — and had even offered Student a full-day, six-week intensive version with transportation included. No evidence showed Student specifically needed the one-on-one setting of the private clinic.

What Was Ordered

All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
The district was found to have prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Removing your child from special education supports can backfire legally. When Parent repeatedly asked to reduce or eliminate Student's RSP and study skills services, the ALJ used those decisions as evidence that the district's program was appropriate and that Parent — not the district — was responsible for the lack of progress. Be very thoughtful before consenting to reduce services, even if your child resists pull-out classes.
The law requires "meaningful" progress, not perfect or grade-level progress. The ALJ rejected the argument that Student needed to make year-for-year gains. Under federal law, a district only has to show that its program was reasonably calculated to provide some educational benefit. Documented progress on IEP goals and grade advancement both count as evidence of benefit.
A triennial assessment does not always require new standardized testing. The district's 2004 triennial consisted of record review, interviews, and teacher reports — no new standardized tests. The ALJ upheld this as legally sufficient because existing data was adequate and Parent never asked for more testing. If you believe your child needs updated testing, submit that request in writing before the triennial IEP meeting.
To win reimbursement for a private program, you must first show the district denied FAPE. Reimbursement requires two things: proof the district failed to provide an appropriate program, AND proof the private program you chose was appropriate. Because the district's own Lindamood Bell program was found appropriate here, the family could not recover the $21,330 they spent — even though Lindamood Bell itself was agreed to be the right intervention for Student.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
The district was found to have prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Removing your child from special education supports can backfire legally. When Parent repeatedly asked to reduce or eliminate Student's RSP and study skills services, the ALJ used those decisions as evidence that the district's program was appropriate and that Parent — not the district — was responsible for the lack of progress. Be very thoughtful before consenting to reduce services, even if your child resists pull-out classes.
The law requires "meaningful" progress, not perfect or grade-level progress. The ALJ rejected the argument that Student needed to make year-for-year gains. Under federal law, a district only has to show that its program was reasonably calculated to provide some educational benefit. Documented progress on IEP goals and grade advancement both count as evidence of benefit.
A triennial assessment does not always require new standardized testing. The district's 2004 triennial consisted of record review, interviews, and teacher reports — no new standardized tests. The ALJ upheld this as legally sufficient because existing data was adequate and Parent never asked for more testing. If you believe your child needs updated testing, submit that request in writing before the triennial IEP meeting.
To win reimbursement for a private program, you must first show the district denied FAPE. Reimbursement requires two things: proof the district failed to provide an appropriate program, AND proof the private program you chose was appropriate. Because the district's own Lindamood Bell program was found appropriate here, the family could not recover the $21,330 they spent — even though Lindamood Bell itself was agreed to be the right intervention for Student.