District Wins: No Tutoring Required When Fremont IEP Didn't Include It

A first-grade student with severe speech and language delays transferred to Moreland School District from Fremont Unified and parents argued the new district was required to provide two hours per day of individual academic tutoring by a certificated teacher. The ALJ found that Student had not received individual tutoring under his prior IEP and that the district was not required to provide it. The district was found to be providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE), and all of Student's requests for relief were denied.

What Happened

Student was a 6-year-old boy in first grade who had been receiving special education services due to a speech and language impairment. He had severe expressive and receptive language delays, spoke Farsi at home and English at school, and showed significant developmental delays across all academic areas. After his family moved, Student transferred from Fremont Unified School District (FUSD) to Moreland School District in the summer of 2006. At Fremont, his IEP had placed him in a Special Day Class (SDC) and provided 30 minutes of speech therapy twice a week.

Parents believed Student needed — and had been receiving — two hours per day of one-on-one academic tutoring by a certificated teacher, and they requested this service from Moreland. When the district declined, Parents filed for due process. They argued that (1) the district was legally required to continue comparable services from the Fremont IEP, which they believed included tutoring, and (2) even if the prior IEP hadn't explicitly included tutoring, Student's lack of academic progress showed he needed it to receive a FAPE.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on both issues. On the first issue, the ALJ found that Student's Fremont IEP did not actually include individual academic tutoring. The IEP's services page — which is the authoritative record of what a student receives — listed only the SDC placement and speech therapy. A handwritten note in the IEP saying Student "benefits from 1 to 1 instructional services" was found to be ambiguous and insufficient to prove tutoring was a required service. Because Student was not receiving tutoring under his prior IEP, the district had no legal obligation to provide it when he transferred.

On the second issue, the ALJ found that the district was already providing meaningful individual instruction within the SDC. The class had a favorable adult-to-student ratio (three adults for five first-graders in the afternoon), and Student's teacher estimated he received direct individual instruction for approximately 30 percent of each school day. The ALJ also credited the teacher's opinion that more individual tutoring could actually harm Student by making him overly dependent on one-on-one support. Crucially, Student's teacher — who had 24 years of experience — and the school psychologist both testified that Student was making meaningful progress toward his IEP goals, including cutting, number identification, letter recognition, and using multi-word phrases. The ALJ found this progress, though modest, was meaningful and more than trivial given Student's significant cognitive limitations. The ALJ also addressed Parents' argument that cognitive assessments were culturally biased, but found it unpersuasive because two of the three assessments used nonverbal tests that did not rely on language.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied.
The district was not required to provide two hours per day of individual academic tutoring by a certificated teacher.
No compensatory education was awarded.

Why This Matters for Parents

The IEP services page is the official record of what your child receives — make sure it reflects everything. If your child is receiving a service — tutoring, extra support, pull-out instruction — it must appear on the written IEP services page. A handwritten note elsewhere in the IEP document is not enough to prove a service was required, as this case shows. Review that page carefully at every IEP meeting and ask for corrections in writing if something is missing.
When you transfer districts within California, the new district must provide "comparable" services — but only what was in the IEP, not what you believe should have been there. California law requires a transferee district to match services from the prior IEP for up to 30 days. This protection only applies to services that were actually documented and provided. If you want a service continued, make sure it is explicitly listed in your current IEP before you move.
Schools are not required to provide the best possible education — only one that gives your child meaningful benefit given their abilities. The law sets a "basic floor," not a ceiling. If your child is making real progress toward their IEP goals — even slow progress — a hearing officer will likely find the district is meeting its legal obligation. To challenge the adequacy of the program, you need expert evidence, not just the parent's opinion.
If you believe an assessment is culturally or linguistically biased, you need expert testimony to support that claim. In this case, the ALJ rejected the father's argument that the cognitive tests were biased because no expert testified to that effect and the assessments used nonverbal testing tools specifically designed to reduce language bias. If you have concerns about how your child was assessed, consider requesting an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) at public expense and involving a qualified expert who can speak to cultural and linguistic factors.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied.
The district was not required to provide two hours per day of individual academic tutoring by a certificated teacher.
No compensatory education was awarded.

Why This Matters for Parents

The IEP services page is the official record of what your child receives — make sure it reflects everything. If your child is receiving a service — tutoring, extra support, pull-out instruction — it must appear on the written IEP services page. A handwritten note elsewhere in the IEP document is not enough to prove a service was required, as this case shows. Review that page carefully at every IEP meeting and ask for corrections in writing if something is missing.
When you transfer districts within California, the new district must provide "comparable" services — but only what was in the IEP, not what you believe should have been there. California law requires a transferee district to match services from the prior IEP for up to 30 days. This protection only applies to services that were actually documented and provided. If you want a service continued, make sure it is explicitly listed in your current IEP before you move.
Schools are not required to provide the best possible education — only one that gives your child meaningful benefit given their abilities. The law sets a "basic floor," not a ceiling. If your child is making real progress toward their IEP goals — even slow progress — a hearing officer will likely find the district is meeting its legal obligation. To challenge the adequacy of the program, you need expert evidence, not just the parent's opinion.
If you believe an assessment is culturally or linguistically biased, you need expert testimony to support that claim. In this case, the ALJ rejected the father's argument that the cognitive tests were biased because no expert testified to that effect and the assessments used nonverbal testing tools specifically designed to reduce language bias. If you have concerns about how your child was assessed, consider requesting an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) at public expense and involving a qualified expert who can speak to cultural and linguistic factors.