District Must Follow Through on Agreed IEP Services — Even If It Expects Parents to Refuse

A high school student with dyslexia prevailed in part against Modesto City Schools after the district agreed to provide one hour per day of specialized tutoring but then never actually delivered the services. The ALJ ordered $2,000 in reimbursement to the parents for the spring 2005 semester. However, the parent's claim for the 2005-2006 school year was denied because the student demonstrated he had internalized his specialized learning strategies and was succeeding academically without intensive tutoring.

What Happened

Student is a teenager with dyslexia — specifically a visual processing disorder — who had received intensive one-on-one tutoring using the Slingerland method (a simultaneous, multi-sensory reading and writing approach) since fourth grade. By the time Student entered ninth grade, he was performing at or above grade level across all subjects. When Student transitioned to high school, the district and parents reached a settlement agreement about his program, and an IEP was developed offering two hours per day of home instruction in the fall semester and one hour per day in the spring semester of ninth grade.

The conflict arose in spring 2005: the parents accepted the district's offer of one hour per day of tutoring, but the district never sent a qualified tutor to deliver those services. Instead, the parents continued paying their private tutor out of pocket. For tenth grade, the district eliminated home tutoring entirely, offering only a resource support period. The parents refused to consent and kept paying for two hours per day of private tutoring. Student filed for due process in November 2005, arguing he was denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) during both school years.

What the District Did Wrong

For the spring 2005 semester, the district agreed that one hour per day of specialized tutoring was appropriate for Student — that was the district's own offer. When the parents accepted that offer in writing on March 7, 2005, the district was legally obligated to provide it. Instead, the district did nothing, later claiming it assumed the parents would reject anyone other than their preferred private tutor. The ALJ rejected this reasoning: the district cannot simply assume parents will refuse a service and use that assumption to avoid ever delivering it. The district's failure to implement the agreed-upon services — or even write to the parents about next steps — unfairly shifted the financial burden onto the family. This amounted to a denial of FAPE for the period March 7 through May 12, 2005.

For the 2005-2006 school year, the ALJ found in favor of the district. Student's tenth grade teachers demonstrated that they were already using multi-sensory teaching techniques similar to Slingerland in their regular classrooms. Student was performing in the top 20-25% of his college preparatory classes in English, geometry, and biology — without any Slingerland-specific tutoring in those subjects. The ALJ found that Student had internalized approximately 90% of the Slingerland strategies over his years of prior training and no longer needed intensive one-on-one tutoring to receive meaningful educational benefit. The district's offer of a resource support period was sufficient for FAPE during tenth grade.

What Was Ordered

Within ten days of the decision, Student's parents were required to submit evidence of payments made to the private tutor during the period March 7, 2005 through May 12, 2005.
Within twenty days of receiving that documentation, the district was ordered to reimburse the family $2,000, representing one hour per day of tutoring at $40 per hour for approximately 50 school days.
The student's claims for the 2005-2006 school year were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

If a district offers a service and you accept it, the district must actually provide it. It is not enough for the district to put something in the IEP and then never follow through. Once parents consent to an IEP offer, the district has a legal obligation to implement it — not to guess that parents will object and use that as an excuse to do nothing.
Keep records of every payment you make for private services. In this case, reimbursement was calculated based on the private tutor's documented hourly rate and the number of school days the district failed to provide services. Invoices and payment receipts are critical evidence if you need to seek reimbursement later.
A student's academic success in the classroom is strong evidence about what level of support is actually needed. The ALJ gave significant weight to teacher observations and grades over standardized test scores that were administered under questionable conditions. If your child's teachers are consistently reporting grade-level or above-average performance, that evidence matters — on both sides of a FAPE dispute.
Settlement agreements have limits — and so does "stay put." The district argued that a prior settlement agreement eliminated the student's stay-put rights permanently. The ALJ disagreed, finding the agreement only applied to the specific interim period it covered. Parents should understand that settlement agreements and IEP offers made after a settlement can create new rights, including new stay-put baselines.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

Within ten days of the decision, Student's parents were required to submit evidence of payments made to the private tutor during the period March 7, 2005 through May 12, 2005.
Within twenty days of receiving that documentation, the district was ordered to reimburse the family $2,000, representing one hour per day of tutoring at $40 per hour for approximately 50 school days.
The student's claims for the 2005-2006 school year were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

If a district offers a service and you accept it, the district must actually provide it. It is not enough for the district to put something in the IEP and then never follow through. Once parents consent to an IEP offer, the district has a legal obligation to implement it — not to guess that parents will object and use that as an excuse to do nothing.
Keep records of every payment you make for private services. In this case, reimbursement was calculated based on the private tutor's documented hourly rate and the number of school days the district failed to provide services. Invoices and payment receipts are critical evidence if you need to seek reimbursement later.
A student's academic success in the classroom is strong evidence about what level of support is actually needed. The ALJ gave significant weight to teacher observations and grades over standardized test scores that were administered under questionable conditions. If your child's teachers are consistently reporting grade-level or above-average performance, that evidence matters — on both sides of a FAPE dispute.
Settlement agreements have limits — and so does "stay put." The district argued that a prior settlement agreement eliminated the student's stay-put rights permanently. The ALJ disagreed, finding the agreement only applied to the specific interim period it covered. Parents should understand that settlement agreements and IEP offers made after a settlement can create new rights, including new stay-put baselines.