District Denied FAPE by Offering Only Two Reading Sessions Per Week Instead of Intensive ESY Program

A 17-year-old student with a specific learning disability in visual processing attended a nonpublic school and required intensive reading support during the extended school year. Grossmont Union High School District offered only two 45-minute reading sessions per week at the student's existing school, while the district's own literacy specialist had recommended a four-hour-per-day, five-day-per-week intensive program. The ALJ found the district's offer inadequate and ordered 120 hours of Lindamood-Bell compensatory services.

What Happened

Student was a 17-year-old 11th grader eligible for special education as a student with a specific learning disability in visual processing. Despite being in the second half of 11th grade, Student's reading skills tested at approximately the second-to-third grade level. Student attended Excelsior Academy, a nonpublic school, during the regular school year. Both the district and the parents agreed that Student required extended school year (ESY) services — the disagreement was about what those services should look like.

During the two prior summers (2004 and 2005), Student had attended an intensive reading program through Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes (LMB). Parents requested that the district fund another intensive LMB program for the 2006 ESY, consisting of four hours per day, five days per week, for eight to ten weeks. The district refused, arguing that Student had not made sufficient progress from prior LMB services. Instead, the district offered ESY placement at Excelsior with reading instruction through the F.A.S.T. Phonics program — just two 45-minute sessions per week. The parents filed for due process, arguing this offer was not enough to meet Student's significant needs.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that the district's own literacy specialist, Ms. Todd, had reviewed Student's records and recommended that Student attend an intensive reading program for four hours a day, five days a week, for three weeks during the 2006 ESY. This recommendation was directly at odds with what the district actually offered — the Excelsior ESY program, which provided only ninety minutes of reading instruction per week. The gap between the district's internal recommendation and its actual offer to the family was the core problem.

The district tried to salvage its case by claiming it had offered Student a spot in an intensive reading program at Granite Hills High School during the March 9, 2006 IEP meeting. The ALJ found this testimony not credible. The IEP meeting notes contained no mention of this program. Other witnesses — including the Excelsior learning specialist and the school psychologist — contradicted this account. The ALJ noted that if an intensive, LMB-based program had actually been offered at a time when parents were specifically requesting LMB services, it almost certainly would have appeared somewhere in the IEP documentation.

The ALJ also reviewed the testing data carefully. While the district had argued that Student made "no progress" with LMB, a closer look at five testing periods over 19 months showed a consistent pattern: Student's scores went up after each LMB session and went down when she only attended Excelsior. This pattern suggested LMB was working, and that the Excelsior-only program was insufficient to maintain Student's skills — which, given her disability, required constant reinforcement to prevent regression.

What Was Ordered

The district must provide Student with 120 hours of sensory-cognitive instruction from Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes as compensatory education.
Services are to be delivered in sessions of up to four hours per day, up to five days per week, for up to six weeks.
Student may receive these services during the 2006–2007 regular school year or extended school year, based on her needs.

Why This Matters for Parents

Your district's own internal recommendations can be used as evidence against it. In this case, the district's literacy specialist recommended an intensive four-hour-per-day program — but the district never offered it. When a district's own expert says one thing and the IEP offers something far less, that gap can establish a FAPE denial.
IEP meeting notes are critical documentation. The district claimed it verbally offered a different, more intensive program at the IEP meeting — but the notes didn't back that up. Always review IEP meeting notes carefully, and if something important was discussed but left out, request that it be added or write your own written response documenting what was (or was not) offered.
Look at the pattern in test scores, not just the overall numbers. The district cherry-picked data suggesting LMB wasn't working. But the full picture — scores rising after LMB sessions and falling without them — told a different story. When evaluating any program's effectiveness, ask to see data across multiple time points, not just before-and-after snapshots.
A student's need for intensive ESY services must be matched by an equally intensive offer. Offering a student who needs four hours a day of reading support just ninety minutes a week is not FAPE, even if the program is otherwise good. The intensity of ESY services must match the student's documented level of need — especially for students who regress quickly without constant support.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

The district must provide Student with 120 hours of sensory-cognitive instruction from Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes as compensatory education.
Services are to be delivered in sessions of up to four hours per day, up to five days per week, for up to six weeks.
Student may receive these services during the 2006–2007 regular school year or extended school year, based on her needs.

Why This Matters for Parents

Your district's own internal recommendations can be used as evidence against it. In this case, the district's literacy specialist recommended an intensive four-hour-per-day program — but the district never offered it. When a district's own expert says one thing and the IEP offers something far less, that gap can establish a FAPE denial.
IEP meeting notes are critical documentation. The district claimed it verbally offered a different, more intensive program at the IEP meeting — but the notes didn't back that up. Always review IEP meeting notes carefully, and if something important was discussed but left out, request that it be added or write your own written response documenting what was (or was not) offered.
Look at the pattern in test scores, not just the overall numbers. The district cherry-picked data suggesting LMB wasn't working. But the full picture — scores rising after LMB sessions and falling without them — told a different story. When evaluating any program's effectiveness, ask to see data across multiple time points, not just before-and-after snapshots.
A student's need for intensive ESY services must be matched by an equally intensive offer. Offering a student who needs four hours a day of reading support just ninety minutes a week is not FAPE, even if the program is otherwise good. The intensity of ESY services must match the student's documented level of need — especially for students who regress quickly without constant support.