District Wins on Tuition Reimbursement But Loses on Flawed IEP Process

A family sought reimbursement for private school tuition and an independent evaluation after Shoreline Unified School District held a deeply flawed IEP meeting in November 2008. The ALJ found the District violated IDEA by failing to make a written FAPE offer, excluding a general education teacher from the IEP meeting, and neglecting to develop any goals or objectives. However, the District prevailed on the family's larger claims: the statute of limitations blocked challenges to the 2005 IEP, and the parents were denied reimbursement for an independent evaluation because they never formally requested one from the District before obtaining it.

What Happened

Student is a boy born in 1998 who had delayed language development from an early age. His parents enrolled him in a private Waldorf school rather than accept the District's 2005 special education offer, which they felt was inadequate. In 2005, the District assessed Student and found him eligible for special education under the category of Specific Learning Disability, but the IEP that followed had a critical flaw: it contained no goals or objectives whatsoever, and it offered no speech and language services even though Student had scored at or below the 10th percentile on most speech and language tests. Because the parents declined the District's offer and kept Student at the private Waldorf school, no further IEP was developed for years.

By third grade, Student was falling further behind his peers despite tutoring. His teacher recommended that parents seek a reassessment from the District. In September 2008, the District developed a new assessment plan that included a speech and language evaluation — but that evaluation was never actually conducted. An IEP meeting was held in November 2008 without a general education teacher present, without any formal written offer of services, and without any discussion of goals or objectives. Parents, feeling they had no real options, signed a form indicating they were voluntarily keeping Student in the private school. They later filed for due process, seeking full private school tuition reimbursement, funding for an independent neuropsychological evaluation they had obtained from Dr. Moleski, and placement at Star Academy, a certified nonpublic school.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found the District committed three serious procedural violations at the November 12, 2008 IEP meeting, each of which independently constituted a denial of FAPE.

No written FAPE offer. The District never made a formal, written offer of placement and services. Federal and California law require a specific, written offer so that parents can meaningfully evaluate what is being proposed. The District's vague discussion of a possible general education placement, without specifying services or supports, did not meet this requirement. In fact, the District's own program manager admitted she was unsure what the current FAPE offer even was after reviewing the IEP documents.

No general education teacher. The IDEA requires that at least one general education teacher attend IEP meetings when a student may be placed in a general education setting. The District invited Student's private school teacher, who was not a District employee and declined to attend, and then proceeded with the meeting anyway. The school principal was present, but a principal is not a substitute for an actual classroom teacher who could speak to how Student's needs could be met in a general education environment. This structural flaw prevented parents from getting meaningful input about the proposed placement.

No goals or objectives. The IEP team never discussed, drafted, or adopted any measurable annual goals or short-term objectives — even though Conlin, the resource specialist, had already drafted two math goals. Without goals, there is no way to measure whether a student is making progress or whether a placement is working.

What Was Ordered

The District was ordered to reimburse parents $13,114.98 — covering Marin Waldorf tuition and transportation costs from December 1, 2008 through the end of the 2008–2009 school year.
Within 21 days, the District was ordered to convene an IEP team meeting to develop an interim IEP, taking into account Dr. Moleski's neuropsychological evaluation and a prior occupational therapy evaluation. The District was directed to include Dr. Moleski and the speech-language expert as IEP team members if possible.
The District was ordered to conduct a speech and language assessment and an audiology evaluation, contracting with the student's designated expert if feasible.
Within 60 days, the District was ordered to hold a full IEP meeting to adopt goals and objectives, determine placement, services, and accommodations.
Student's claim for reimbursement of the independent neuropsychological evaluation was denied — parents never formally asked the District for an IEE before obtaining it privately.
Student's claims related to the 2005 IEP and earlier years were denied as time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations.

Why This Matters for Parents

Before paying for an independent evaluation, formally request one from the District first. The law gives parents the right to an IEE at public expense if they disagree with the District's evaluation — but only if they ask. In this case, parents hired Dr. Moleski without ever making that formal request, and as a result lost the right to reimbursement for a $4,130 evaluation. Always submit a written IEE request to the District before scheduling a private evaluation.
The two-year statute of limitations is real and it will cut off your claims. Parents in this case could not recover tuition for the 2005–2007 school years because they waited too long to file. If you believe your child's IEP or placement is inadequate, document your concerns in writing and consider filing a due process complaint within two years of the date you knew — or should have known — about the violation.
An IEP with no goals is legally invalid. The absence of measurable annual goals is not a technicality — it is a fundamental failure that the ALJ found to be a denial of FAPE on its own. If your child's IEP meeting ends without any goals being discussed or adopted, that is grounds for a complaint.
A general education teacher must be at IEP meetings when general education placement is being discussed. A principal or administrator does not satisfy this requirement. If the District proposes to exclude a general education teacher from your child's IEP meeting, ask why in writing and object if you do not agree to the waiver — the IDEA requires your written consent to waive this requirement.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found the District committed three serious procedural violations at the November 12, 2008 IEP meeting, each of which independently constituted a denial of FAPE.

What Was Ordered

The District was ordered to reimburse parents $13,114.98 — covering Marin Waldorf tuition and transportation costs from December 1, 2008 through the end of the 2008–2009 school year.
Within 21 days, the District was ordered to convene an IEP team meeting to develop an interim IEP, taking into account Dr. Moleski's neuropsychological evaluation and a prior occupational therapy evaluation. The District was directed to include Dr. Moleski and the speech-language expert as IEP team members if possible.
The District was ordered to conduct a speech and language assessment and an audiology evaluation, contracting with the student's designated expert if feasible.
Within 60 days, the District was ordered to hold a full IEP meeting to adopt goals and objectives, determine placement, services, and accommodations.
Student's claim for reimbursement of the independent neuropsychological evaluation was denied — parents never formally asked the District for an IEE before obtaining it privately.
Student's claims related to the 2005 IEP and earlier years were denied as time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations.

Why This Matters for Parents

Before paying for an independent evaluation, formally request one from the District first. The law gives parents the right to an IEE at public expense if they disagree with the District's evaluation — but only if they ask. In this case, parents hired Dr. Moleski without ever making that formal request, and as a result lost the right to reimbursement for a $4,130 evaluation. Always submit a written IEE request to the District before scheduling a private evaluation.
The two-year statute of limitations is real and it will cut off your claims. Parents in this case could not recover tuition for the 2005–2007 school years because they waited too long to file. If you believe your child's IEP or placement is inadequate, document your concerns in writing and consider filing a due process complaint within two years of the date you knew — or should have known — about the violation.
An IEP with no goals is legally invalid. The absence of measurable annual goals is not a technicality — it is a fundamental failure that the ALJ found to be a denial of FAPE on its own. If your child's IEP meeting ends without any goals being discussed or adopted, that is grounds for a complaint.
A general education teacher must be at IEP meetings when general education placement is being discussed. A principal or administrator does not satisfy this requirement. If the District proposes to exclude a general education teacher from your child's IEP meeting, ask why in writing and object if you do not agree to the waiver — the IDEA requires your written consent to waive this requirement.