District Ordered 200 Hours of Reading Therapy After Failing to Write Reading Goals

A 13-year-old student with a specific learning disability and ADHD attended New Haven Unified School District schools across multiple years, while her parent raised concerns about inadequate goals, missing reading instruction, ignored private assessments, and exclusion from IEP meetings. The ALJ found the District denied the student FAPE primarily by failing to include a reading goal after December 2006, excluding the parent from two IEP meetings, and refusing to consider a private evaluation. The student was awarded 200 hours of intensive reading therapy through the Lindamood Bell Seeing Stars program as compensatory education.

What Happened

Student is a 13-year-old African American girl with a specific learning disability (SLD) and ADHD who had been receiving special education services since 2002. She returned to New Haven Unified School District schools in January 2006 after several years at a private school, and attended a District elementary school for fifth grade and a middle school for sixth grade. Her parent raised significant concerns throughout both school years: that the District was not providing appropriate reading instruction, was failing to include new goals in her IEP when she met existing ones, was holding IEP meetings without the parent present, and was refusing to consider a private evaluation the parent had obtained.

The parent filed for due process in July 2007, seeking compensatory education through Lindamood Bell or the Rascob Center, individual tutoring, the Kurzweil 3000 reading software for home use, counseling services, and reimbursement for private tutoring and a private assessment. The District argued that Student was making meaningful educational progress and that its programs, goals, and procedures were appropriate. The hearing was held over four days in October 2007 in Union City, California.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ issued a mixed ruling. The District prevailed on many claims — the 2005–2006 school year program, AT services, ESY, and reimbursement for private tutoring and counseling were all found appropriate. However, the ALJ found several significant violations:

No Reading Goal After December 2006. When Student met her reading goals at the December 2006 IEP meeting, the District did not write new reading goals — and never did so for the rest of the 2006–2007 school year or for the proposed 2007–2008 year. Reading was a documented area of significant deficit for Student. The ALJ found this failure denied Student a FAPE. For two consecutive years, Student ended the school year reading at the same beginning-fifth-grade level, suggesting that without targeted reading goals, her progress stagnated.

Parent Excluded from Two IEP Meetings. The District held IEP meetings on December 8, 2006, and April 5, 2007, without the parent. For the December meeting, the District gave notice only through a phone call the afternoon before — not sufficient. The April meeting was scheduled at 2:00 p.m., even though the parent had previously told the District she could not attend before 2:30 p.m. The ALJ found the District failed to schedule meetings at mutually agreeable times and failed to keep adequate records of its outreach efforts. These failures significantly impeded the parent's ability to participate in decisions about her child's education.

Private Assessment Rejected Without Proper Review. The parent obtained a private evaluation in January 2007 and provided it to the District in April 2007. The District returned it without consideration, claiming it was unsigned (a draft), and that it impermissibly included IQ testing of an African American child under the Larry P. v. Riles injunction. The ALJ admitted the report into evidence and found the District misapplied Larry P. — that case prohibits using IQ tests to place African American students in classes for the educably mentally retarded, not to understand a student's current academic needs. The District was required by California law and federal regulations to consider the report, and its refusal deprived the IEP team of the most current information about Student's needs.

Failure to Provide Written Assessment Plan. When the parent submitted a written request for a full assessment in January 2007, the District was required to respond with a written assessment plan within 15 days. Instead, it offered to conduct the triennial evaluation early — without a written plan. The ALJ found this was insufficient and that the District violated its assessment obligations.

What Was Ordered

The District was ordered to immediately assess Student in all areas of suspected disability and hold an IEP meeting with adequate advance notice to the parent to review the results.
Within 30 days, the District must contract with Lindamood Bell to provide Student with 200 hours of the Seeing Stars program at a Lindamood Bell facility. The District must coordinate the schedule with the family and pay for transportation to and from the program.
All other requests for relief — including reimbursement for the private assessment, private tutoring, counseling services, and home use of the Kurzweil software — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

A goal your child has met must be replaced, not simply dropped. When a student meets an IEP goal, the district must write a new goal to continue addressing that area of need — especially if the area remains a deficit. Simply removing a goal without a replacement can be a FAPE violation, as it was here with reading.
Districts must schedule IEP meetings at times you can actually attend. Federal law requires that meetings be scheduled at a "mutually agreed on time and place." If you have told the district you cannot attend at a certain time, document that in writing. If they schedule a meeting at a time you said doesn't work, that failure to accommodate you can be a procedural violation that rises to a denial of FAPE.
The district must keep detailed records of how it tried to reach you. If the district claims it gave notice or made efforts to include you, it must be able to prove it — with phone logs, certified mail receipts, or written records. Vague handwritten notes or unsupported claims are not enough. Keep your own records of all communications.
A private evaluation you share with the district must be considered, not returned. California law and federal regulations require the IEP team to consider any private evaluation you provide, as long as it meets general agency criteria. The district cannot simply reject a report because it disagrees with the methods used — it must engage with the information. If your evaluation is refused, challenge that refusal in writing immediately.
Compensatory education can be awarded as intensive outside services. When a district fails to provide appropriate instruction, an ALJ can order it to fund a specialized private program — like Lindamood Bell — as make-up services. This case shows that 200 hours of intensive reading remediation is a real, concrete remedy that can result from a successful due process hearing.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The District was ordered to immediately assess Student in all areas of suspected disability and hold an IEP meeting with adequate advance notice to the parent to review the results.
Within 30 days, the District must contract with Lindamood Bell to provide Student with 200 hours of the Seeing Stars program at a Lindamood Bell facility. The District must coordinate the schedule with the family and pay for transportation to and from the program.
All other requests for relief — including reimbursement for the private assessment, private tutoring, counseling services, and home use of the Kurzweil software — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

A goal your child has met must be replaced, not simply dropped. When a student meets an IEP goal, the district must write a new goal to continue addressing that area of need — especially if the area remains a deficit. Simply removing a goal without a replacement can be a FAPE violation, as it was here with reading.
Districts must schedule IEP meetings at times you can actually attend. Federal law requires that meetings be scheduled at a "mutually agreed on time and place." If you have told the district you cannot attend at a certain time, document that in writing. If they schedule a meeting at a time you said doesn't work, that failure to accommodate you can be a procedural violation that rises to a denial of FAPE.
The district must keep detailed records of how it tried to reach you. If the district claims it gave notice or made efforts to include you, it must be able to prove it — with phone logs, certified mail receipts, or written records. Vague handwritten notes or unsupported claims are not enough. Keep your own records of all communications.
A private evaluation you share with the district must be considered, not returned. California law and federal regulations require the IEP team to consider any private evaluation you provide, as long as it meets general agency criteria. The district cannot simply reject a report because it disagrees with the methods used — it must engage with the information. If your evaluation is refused, challenge that refusal in writing immediately.
Compensatory education can be awarded as intensive outside services. When a district fails to provide appropriate instruction, an ALJ can order it to fund a specialized private program — like Lindamood Bell — as make-up services. This case shows that 200 hours of intensive reading remediation is a real, concrete remedy that can result from a successful due process hearing.