District Wins on IEP Offer, But Owes 450 Minutes of Speech Therapy for Failure to Implement

A Salinas Union High School District student with a specific learning disability challenged his 2008-2009 IEP, alleging predetermination, an inappropriate English program, failure to provide agreed services, and schedule changes made without notice. The ALJ found the district's IEP offer was appropriate and that parents had effectively created an unauthorized shortened school day by enrolling their son at Lindamood Bell instead of in an English class. However, the district was ordered to provide 450 minutes of compensatory speech-language therapy because it failed to deliver the services parents had accepted.

What Happened

A 16-year-old student with a specific learning disability had a long history of special education services, including placement at Chartwell School, a certified non-public school, for eighth grade. When he transitioned to Salinas Union High School District for ninth grade, the district held IEP meetings in May 2008 and proposed a program that included a special education English class, a Read 180 reading intervention, specialized academic instruction in math and science, speech-language therapy twice a week, OT consultation, and mental health counseling. Parents disagreed with the proposed English placement, believing their son needed a multisensory language (MSL) program like Lindamood Bell. They partially accepted the IEP — agreeing to math, science, PE, and elective classes, along with speech-language therapy and OT — but enrolled their son at a private Lindamood Bell center in Monterey for English instruction instead of accepting the district's English class.

When the school year began, the student attended only five of the standard six class periods at Salinas High School, with Mother driving him to Lindamood Bell for the remainder of the day. The district pushed back, insisting he attend a full school day that included an English class, eventually changing his schedule without parental consent and generating truancy concerns. The student became upset and refused to return to school for the rest of 2008. Separately, the district failed to begin delivering speech-language therapy for months after parents consented to it in September 2008. Two consolidated due process cases — one filed by the district, one by the parents — were heard together over multiple days in early 2009.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled mostly in the district's favor, with one important exception on implementation of speech-language services:

No predetermination at the IEP meetings. The district brought a draft IEP to the May 2008 meetings, which is permitted. The team discussed multiple topics with an open mind, made changes based on parent and expert input, and proposed follow-up observations of alternative classes. The district did not take a "take it or leave it" position.
The IEP's English program was appropriate. The combination of a special education English SDC class and the Read 180 reading program was designed to meet the student's unique needs and was reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational benefit. The fact that parents preferred Lindamood Bell's MSL methodology did not make the district's offer a denial of FAPE — methodology is generally left to the district's discretion as long as the program is appropriate.
The district did NOT violate stay-put rights by requiring a full school day. Parents had unilaterally arranged the five-period shortened day without district agreement. The student's actual stay-put placement — based on his last agreed-upon Spreckels IEP — included a full school day with an English class. The district's insistence on a full schedule was an attempt to implement stay-put, not a change in placement, and did not require prior written notice.
The district DID fail to implement agreed speech-language services. Parents consented to speech-language therapy in September 2008, but the district failed to deliver 450 minutes of those services between September 16, 2008 and March 5, 2009. This was a material failure to implement the IEP and constituted a denial of FAPE.
The district did NOT violate parents' right to have their expert observe the classroom. When parents' independent evaluator Dr. Wolk wanted to observe the proposed English SDC on January 15, 2009, the district was unable to accommodate that specific date (it was a prep day for finals with administrators at a conference) but offered alternative dates and ultimately arranged for the observation. Declining to accommodate one specific date while promptly offering alternatives did not violate parents' observation rights.

What Was Ordered

The district must provide the student with 450 minutes of speech-language services from a licensed speech-language pathologist as compensatory education, in addition to his ongoing IEP speech-language services. These compensatory services must be completed within one year of the order date (by May 11, 2010).
The district's May 2008 IEP was confirmed to be a valid offer of FAPE for the 2008-2009 school year.
All other claims for relief raised by the student and parents were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Partial IEP acceptance does not create a new placement. If you accept only part of an IEP, the portions you did not accept revert to your child's prior IEP — not to whatever arrangement happens to be in place at the start of the school year. Enrolling your child in a private program instead of a district class does not create an agreed "stay-put" placement; it is treated as a unilateral parental decision.
Get the district's agreement in writing before changing anything. In this case, a school staff member apparently told Mother it was "okay" not to enroll in an English class — but there was no written agreement. Without written confirmation, informal understandings carry little weight and can collapse quickly.
Track every service the district owes and document delays. The student won compensatory speech-language therapy specifically because the district failed to deliver services that parents had formally accepted in writing. Keep a written log of what services are supposed to start and when they actually begin. If services are delayed, put your concern in writing immediately.
Your independent expert has the right to observe a proposed placement — but not necessarily on any one specific date. The law gives parents the right to have an independent evaluator observe a proposed classroom. However, the district can require reasonable scheduling. If timing matters (e.g., before a hearing), make the request as early as possible and document all communications to protect your record.
Preferring a specific methodology does not automatically make the district's program inappropriate. Courts and ALJs give districts significant discretion in choosing instructional methods. To challenge a district's program on methodology grounds, parents generally need strong evidence that the district's approach cannot provide meaningful benefit — not just that another method might work better.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled mostly in the district's favor, with one important exception on implementation of speech-language services:

No predetermination at the IEP meetings. The district brought a draft IEP to the May 2008 meetings, which is permitted. The team discussed multiple topics with an open mind, made changes based on parent and expert input, and proposed follow-up observations of alternative classes. The district did not take a "take it or leave it" position.
The IEP's English program was appropriate. The combination of a special education English SDC class and the Read 180 reading program was designed to meet the student's unique needs and was reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational benefit. The fact that parents preferred Lindamood Bell's MSL methodology did not make the district's offer a denial of FAPE — methodology is generally left to the district's discretion as long as the program is appropriate.
The district did NOT violate stay-put rights by requiring a full school day. Parents had unilaterally arranged the five-period shortened day without district agreement. The student's actual stay-put placement — based on his last agreed-upon Spreckels IEP — included a full school day with an English class. The district's insistence on a full schedule was an attempt to implement stay-put, not a change in placement, and did not require prior written notice.
The district DID fail to implement agreed speech-language services. Parents consented to speech-language therapy in September 2008, but the district failed to deliver 450 minutes of those services between September 16, 2008 and March 5, 2009. This was a material failure to implement the IEP and constituted a denial of FAPE.
The district did NOT violate parents' right to have their expert observe the classroom. When parents' independent evaluator Dr. Wolk wanted to observe the proposed English SDC on January 15, 2009, the district was unable to accommodate that specific date (it was a prep day for finals with administrators at a conference) but offered alternative dates and ultimately arranged for the observation. Declining to accommodate one specific date while promptly offering alternatives did not violate parents' observation rights.

What Was Ordered

The district must provide the student with 450 minutes of speech-language services from a licensed speech-language pathologist as compensatory education, in addition to his ongoing IEP speech-language services. These compensatory services must be completed within one year of the order date (by May 11, 2010).
The district's May 2008 IEP was confirmed to be a valid offer of FAPE for the 2008-2009 school year.
All other claims for relief raised by the student and parents were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Partial IEP acceptance does not create a new placement. If you accept only part of an IEP, the portions you did not accept revert to your child's prior IEP — not to whatever arrangement happens to be in place at the start of the school year. Enrolling your child in a private program instead of a district class does not create an agreed "stay-put" placement; it is treated as a unilateral parental decision.
Get the district's agreement in writing before changing anything. In this case, a school staff member apparently told Mother it was "okay" not to enroll in an English class — but there was no written agreement. Without written confirmation, informal understandings carry little weight and can collapse quickly.
Track every service the district owes and document delays. The student won compensatory speech-language therapy specifically because the district failed to deliver services that parents had formally accepted in writing. Keep a written log of what services are supposed to start and when they actually begin. If services are delayed, put your concern in writing immediately.
Your independent expert has the right to observe a proposed placement — but not necessarily on any one specific date. The law gives parents the right to have an independent evaluator observe a proposed classroom. However, the district can require reasonable scheduling. If timing matters (e.g., before a hearing), make the request as early as possible and document all communications to protect your record.
Preferring a specific methodology does not automatically make the district's program inappropriate. Courts and ALJs give districts significant discretion in choosing instructional methods. To challenge a district's program on methodology grounds, parents generally need strong evidence that the district's approach cannot provide meaningful benefit — not just that another method might work better.