Torrance Student Wins Compensatory Reading Services After District Failed to Offer Intensive Remediation

A high school student with a specific learning disability in reading sued Torrance Unified School District for denying him a FAPE across multiple school years. The ALJ found the District failed to provide appropriate reading goals and intensive reading services during the 2003-2004 school year, and failed to develop appropriate reading goals during 2004-2005. The student was awarded 240 hours of one-to-one Lindamood-Bell reading instruction as compensatory education, though the District prevailed on all other issues including math, speech-language, written language, social-emotional needs, transition planning, and the ESY services dispute.

What Happened

Student was a high school student in Torrance Unified School District eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability, based on a severe discrepancy between his reading ability and his cognitive ability. Despite this eligibility, Student graduated in June 2006 with a regular diploma, passed the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), earned more than enough credits for graduation, and held a GPA of nearly 3.0. Parent filed a due process hearing request in October 2006 — covering the period from October 2003 through graduation — alleging the District failed to provide appropriate goals and services in reading, writing, math, speech-language, social-emotional development, and transition planning. Parent also alleged that the District improperly reduced the length of a Lindamood-Bell program offered during the 2005 Extended School Year (ESY). Parent sought reimbursement for private speech therapy and tutoring costs, and two years of tuition at Landmark College as a compensatory remedy.

The hearing lasted ten days and involved testimony from multiple experts retained by both sides. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) carefully weighed competing assessments and testimony, ultimately finding that the District had failed Student in a narrow but important way: it did not provide appropriate reading goals or offer intensive reading remediation during Student's tenth-grade year, and its reading goals in the following year were similarly misaligned with Student's identified needs. On all other claims, the District prevailed.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found two specific FAPE violations related to reading. First, during the 2003-2004 school year, the District's own assessment assumed Student had a severe reading deficit — yet Student's IEP goals were written at a ninth- and tenth-grade reading level, far above where Student was actually functioning. The District's special education director acknowledged that students reading more than two grade levels below grade level should receive intensive reading remediation, but no such program was offered — only placement in a Special Day Class (SDC), which the ALJ found conferred little educational benefit for independent reading. Second, during the 2004-2005 school year, Student's IEP goals did not address reading fluency — which the District's own data identified as his greatest area of need — and were written many grade levels above Student's actual functioning.

On the remaining issues, the ALJ denied all of Parent's claims. Student's standardized math scores were consistently average, he passed the CAHSEE in math, and his difficulties in Algebra were attributed in part to incomplete homework rather than a unique disability-based math need. The ALJ rejected the speech-language claims because District testing showed average results, private therapist records were found unreliable, and Student successfully participated in general education drama classes and read aloud without difficulty. Written language goals were found appropriate to Student's actual spelling and grammar weaknesses. No social-emotional needs were established. Transition plans were found adequate because they were based on Student's interests, included employment training through the Workability program, and Student followed the plans by taking relevant electives and sitting for community college placement exams. The ESY dispute was resolved in the District's favor because the ALJ found the IEP addendum had always offered a six-week Lindamood-Bell program, not eight weeks, and was not altered after Parent signed it. Requests for tutoring reimbursement were denied due to lack of documentation, and reimbursement for private speech therapy was denied because no FAPE denial in speech-language was found.

What Was Ordered

The District must contract with Lindamood-Bell to provide Student with up to 240 hours of one-to-one educational therapy covering decoding, symbol imagery, and comprehension at a Lindamood-Bell facility, within 60 days of the decision.
If Student does not use all 240 hours, the District is only required to pay for the hours actually used.
All other requests for relief — including reimbursement for private speech therapy, tutoring costs, and two years of Landmark College tuition — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

IEP goals must actually match your child's current level — not just their grade level. The ALJ found a FAPE violation because the District wrote reading goals many grade levels above where Student was actually performing, even according to the District's own test data. If your child's IEP goals seem disconnected from their assessment scores, that is a red flag worth challenging.
A district that identifies a severe reading deficit must offer intensive remediation, not just SDC placement. The District's own special education director acknowledged that students reading more than two grade levels below grade level should receive intensive intervention. Placement in a special day class alone was not enough. If your child is significantly behind in reading, ask specifically what intensive, research-based reading program the District is offering — not just what class they are placed in.
Refusing the District's offered services can affect what compensation you receive. The ALJ reduced the compensatory education award and denied the Landmark College tuition remedy in part because Parent had refused District offers of Lindamood-Bell and SRA Corrective Reading services in later school years. Under IDEA, a district cannot be held responsible for failing to provide services that a parent declined. Think carefully before rejecting a District offer, even if you believe a different program would be better.
Expert credibility matters — and bias can undermine your case. The ALJ specifically discounted the testimony of Parent's expert because she co-authored an article with Student's attorney titled "How to Write an Assessment Report: A Litigation Perspective" and reported scores in grade equivalents (which made comparisons harder) at the attorney's request. When hiring private evaluators, choose professionals whose work can withstand scrutiny as objective and independent.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The District must contract with Lindamood-Bell to provide Student with up to 240 hours of one-to-one educational therapy covering decoding, symbol imagery, and comprehension at a Lindamood-Bell facility, within 60 days of the decision.
If Student does not use all 240 hours, the District is only required to pay for the hours actually used.
All other requests for relief — including reimbursement for private speech therapy, tutoring costs, and two years of Landmark College tuition — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

IEP goals must actually match your child's current level — not just their grade level. The ALJ found a FAPE violation because the District wrote reading goals many grade levels above where Student was actually performing, even according to the District's own test data. If your child's IEP goals seem disconnected from their assessment scores, that is a red flag worth challenging.
A district that identifies a severe reading deficit must offer intensive remediation, not just SDC placement. The District's own special education director acknowledged that students reading more than two grade levels below grade level should receive intensive intervention. Placement in a special day class alone was not enough. If your child is significantly behind in reading, ask specifically what intensive, research-based reading program the District is offering — not just what class they are placed in.
Refusing the District's offered services can affect what compensation you receive. The ALJ reduced the compensatory education award and denied the Landmark College tuition remedy in part because Parent had refused District offers of Lindamood-Bell and SRA Corrective Reading services in later school years. Under IDEA, a district cannot be held responsible for failing to provide services that a parent declined. Think carefully before rejecting a District offer, even if you believe a different program would be better.
Expert credibility matters — and bias can undermine your case. The ALJ specifically discounted the testimony of Parent's expert because she co-authored an article with Student's attorney titled "How to Write an Assessment Report: A Litigation Perspective" and reported scores in grade equivalents (which made comparisons harder) at the attorney's request. When hiring private evaluators, choose professionals whose work can withstand scrutiny as objective and independent.