Garden Grove Student With Dyslexia and Autism Wins Compensatory Reading Services

A Garden Grove Unified School District student with specific learning disability, autism, and dyslexia-related reading deficits was denied a free appropriate public education when the District failed to meaningfully implement its intensive reading program and ignored clear signs he was not progressing. The ALJ ordered the District to reimburse parents $9,449 for a private reading intervention program the family self-funded in summer 2008, plus transportation costs, and to fund 240 hours of compensatory reading services. The District prevailed on most other issues, including private school tuition reimbursement, IEE funding, and ESY for summer 2009.

What Happened

Student is a child with specific learning disability as his primary special education eligibility and autism as a secondary classification. He also qualified as an English Language Learner, with Spanish spoken at home. From kindergarten onward, Student struggled significantly with reading decoding, phonemic awareness, phonological memory, and written language — while performing at or near grade level in math and demonstrating strong nonverbal problem-solving skills. The District provided him with resource specialist program (RSP) support and speech and language services throughout elementary school, and eventually enrolled him in an intensive structured reading program called Language! to address his severe reading deficits.

Parents grew increasingly concerned that Student was not making meaningful progress. By the end of fifth grade, Student scored only 44 percent on his Language! Book C summative test and his other assessments showed his abilities were still consistent with the earliest levels of the program. His grades were declining, and a writing sample showed he could not follow written directions, could not spell, and could not write a coherent paragraph. Despite these red flags, the District did not convene an IEP meeting to address his lack of progress, did not offer special education extended school year (ESY) services for summer 2008, and did not change his reading intervention. Parents privately enrolled Student in the Lindamood-Bell (LMB) program during summer 2008 at their own expense and later placed him at the Prentice School for the 2009–2010 school year, seeking reimbursement for both. Student filed for due process in October 2008, raising twelve issues covering nearly every aspect of his educational program.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that the District denied Student a FAPE in two specific ways. First, Student's March 2007 IEP contained an inadequate reading goal that did not appropriately target his documented deficits. Second, and more significantly, by the end of the 2007–2008 school year the District's continued reliance on the Language! program — without addressing Student's mounting evidence of failure — deprived him of educational opportunity. The evidence showed that Student received little individualized instruction during his time in Language! Books A, B, and the first run through Book C. It was only when the District itself decided to have Student repeat Book C entirely — effectively acknowledging he hadn't learned the material — that more individualized attention began. The ALJ found that by the close of fifth grade, the District had enough information to know Student was not making legally sufficient progress and should have held an IEP meeting, changed its approach, and offered ESY reading services for summer 2008. Its failure to do any of these things constituted a denial of FAPE.

The ALJ ruled in the District's favor on all other issues. Student's claims that the District failed him in social interaction, behavior, speech-language services, math, science, assistive technology, transition planning, predetermination, assessment adequacy, and IEE funding were all denied. Notably, the ALJ found no evidence that Parents ever formally requested an IEE in a way that gave the District adequate notice of which assessment they were challenging. The District also prevailed on the tuition reimbursement claim for Prentice because Student made meaningful progress during sixth grade, and the proposed IEP for seventh grade would have offered a FAPE.

What Was Ordered

The District must reimburse Parents $9,449 for the cost of the LMB private reading program Student attended in summer 2008, within 45 days of the decision.
The District must reimburse Parents for transportation costs for 25 round trips from their home to the LMB Center in Newport Beach during summer 2008, calculated at the District's standard mileage reimbursement rate.
Within 60 days, the District must contract directly with the LMB Center to fund 240 hours of LMB services for Student as compensatory education, with reimbursement of round-trip mileage for each session attended.
Student has 12 months from the date the District notifies Parents the contract is in place to use the 240 hours; any unused hours are forfeited.
All other requests for relief — including private school tuition reimbursement, prospective NPS placement, ESY for summer 2009, and IEE funding — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Document your child's lack of progress in writing and request an IEP meeting immediately. In this case, the District's failure to act on clear evidence of stalled progress — low test scores, declining grades, an unreadable writing sample — is what ultimately cost it. Parents who compile this evidence and formally request an IEP meeting create a record that protects their child and shifts the burden onto the District to respond.
If you privately fund services the District should have provided, keep every invoice. Parents here recovered $9,449 because they had LMB invoices in evidence. Reimbursement for self-funded services depends on documented costs, so save receipts, contracts, and payment records from the moment you begin.
A formal IEE request must clearly identify which District assessment you are challenging. The ALJ rejected the IEE claim here in part because the letter Parents sent did not specify which assessment they disputed or what type of IEE they were requesting. Any IEE request should state the specific assessment you believe was inadequate and the type of independent evaluation you are seeking.
Districts have broad discretion over instructional methodology — but not over results. The ALJ repeatedly emphasized that the District could choose Language! without consulting Parents and was not required to use LMB. However, that discretion ends when the chosen program stops working. What ultimately mattered was not which program was used, but whether Student was making meaningful progress — and when the evidence said he wasn't, the District was obligated to act.
ESY must be offered when a student is at risk of significant regression, not just when parents request it. The ALJ found the District should have offered special education ESY for summer 2008 based on Student's own data — without Parents having to demand it. If your child's end-of-year progress data shows minimal gains or regression, raise ESY at every spring IEP meeting and put your request in writing.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

The District must reimburse Parents $9,449 for the cost of the LMB private reading program Student attended in summer 2008, within 45 days of the decision.
The District must reimburse Parents for transportation costs for 25 round trips from their home to the LMB Center in Newport Beach during summer 2008, calculated at the District's standard mileage reimbursement rate.
Within 60 days, the District must contract directly with the LMB Center to fund 240 hours of LMB services for Student as compensatory education, with reimbursement of round-trip mileage for each session attended.
Student has 12 months from the date the District notifies Parents the contract is in place to use the 240 hours; any unused hours are forfeited.
All other requests for relief — including private school tuition reimbursement, prospective NPS placement, ESY for summer 2009, and IEE funding — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Document your child's lack of progress in writing and request an IEP meeting immediately. In this case, the District's failure to act on clear evidence of stalled progress — low test scores, declining grades, an unreadable writing sample — is what ultimately cost it. Parents who compile this evidence and formally request an IEP meeting create a record that protects their child and shifts the burden onto the District to respond.
If you privately fund services the District should have provided, keep every invoice. Parents here recovered $9,449 because they had LMB invoices in evidence. Reimbursement for self-funded services depends on documented costs, so save receipts, contracts, and payment records from the moment you begin.
A formal IEE request must clearly identify which District assessment you are challenging. The ALJ rejected the IEE claim here in part because the letter Parents sent did not specify which assessment they disputed or what type of IEE they were requesting. Any IEE request should state the specific assessment you believe was inadequate and the type of independent evaluation you are seeking.
Districts have broad discretion over instructional methodology — but not over results. The ALJ repeatedly emphasized that the District could choose Language! without consulting Parents and was not required to use LMB. However, that discretion ends when the chosen program stops working. What ultimately mattered was not which program was used, but whether Student was making meaningful progress — and when the evidence said he wasn't, the District was obligated to act.
ESY must be offered when a student is at risk of significant regression, not just when parents request it. The ALJ found the District should have offered special education ESY for summer 2008 based on Student's own data — without Parents having to demand it. If your child's end-of-year progress data shows minimal gains or regression, raise ESY at every spring IEP meeting and put your request in writing.