LAUSD Prevails: Parent's Claims of FAPE Denial in Reading, Counseling, and Grading Rejected

What Happened

Student is a teenage girl who qualified for special education under the category of Specific Learning Disability (SLD). She had been retained twice due to academic difficulties, and throughout middle school was placed in a Special Day Class (SDC) for students with SLD. Her challenges included significant deficits in reading comprehension, writing, and math, as well as social-emotional difficulties such as shyness, low self-confidence, and inconsistent focus. Student also suffered from migraine headaches. Parent had entered into two prior settlement agreements with the District — in 2008 and 2009 — and had waived earlier claims as part of those settlements.

Parent filed a new due process complaint in October 2011, raising six issues: that the District violated a prior settlement agreement by not completing 80 hours of intensive tutoring; that it failed to provide adequate reading instruction and ignored Student's dyslexia; that it failed to provide psychological therapy after an alleged sexual harassment incident in 2010; that it hid documents affecting Student's development; that it gave Student falsely inflated grades; and that shortened school days and incompetent teachers denied Student a FAPE. The hearing was held over four days in 2012. Parent represented Student herself, with the assistance of a Spanish-language interpreter throughout.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the District on every issue, finding that Parent failed to meet her burden of proof on all six claims.

On the settlement agreement claim, the ALJ found that Parent herself had terminated the intensive tutoring services because she disliked the assigned instructor — without ever notifying the District. Mother's estimate that Student received only 20 of the 80 promised hours was uncorroborated, and a subsequent December 2009 settlement agreement had waived all prior claims through that date.

On reading instruction and dyslexia, the ALJ found that the Beyond the Bell tutoring program Parent relied on was a District-wide program available to all students — it was not part of Student's IEP or special education program. The suggestion that Student had dyslexia came from a Beyond the Bell tutor whose credentials were unknown, and was not verified by any qualified professional. The ALJ found that Student's SDC placement with individualized accommodations appropriately addressed her profound SLD, as confirmed by two independent Regional Center psychologists.

On psychological therapy, the ALJ found that District had no notice of the alleged sexual harassment until after the March 2010 IEP, and that Parent never shared critical Regional Center or Children's Hospital mental health reports with the District before hearings. When the District did learn of Student's emotional needs through its own school psychologist in early 2011, it promptly offered 30 minutes per week of school-based counseling — which Student received. The ALJ found that school-based counseling was appropriate given Student's needs, and that the District was not required to fund intensive psychotherapy for issues extending into Student's home and community life.

On the remaining issues — hidden documents, falsified grades, and incompetent teachers — the ALJ found that Parent's testimony was contradicted by documentary evidence and credible witness testimony. Student received report cards and homework assignments like all other students. The disparity between Student's SDC grades and her statewide test scores did not prove deceptive grading, since SDC grades reflect progress within that specialized setting. Teacher credentials were appropriate, and the once-weekly shortened school day applied to all District students equally with no demonstrated impact on Student's FAPE.

What Was Ordered

1. All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
2. The District prevailed on every issue heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Share outside evaluations with the District promptly. Parent obtained Regional Center and Children's Hospital psychological assessments that documented Student's depression and adaptive skill deficits — but never gave these to the District before the hearing. The ALJ noted this repeatedly. If you have independent evaluations that show your child has unmet needs, bring them to IEP meetings. A district cannot be held responsible for failing to address needs it was never told about.

2. Document everything when you terminate a service. Parent ended Student's tutoring because she disliked the assigned tutor, but never told the District. The ALJ found this broke the chain of District responsibility. If you have a problem with a service provider, put your concerns in writing to the District immediately — don't simply stop attending.

3. A suggestion of dyslexia is not a diagnosis. The ALJ rejected the dyslexia claim because it came from an after-school tutor with unknown credentials. If you believe your child has dyslexia or another specific condition, pursue a formal evaluation by a qualified professional and bring those findings to the IEP team in writing.

4. Prior settlement agreements matter and have lasting consequences. Parent had signed two settlements waiving earlier claims. This blocked her from relitigating issues that arose before those dates. Before signing any settlement agreement, make sure you understand exactly which claims you are giving up and for how long.

5. Credibility is crucial at hearing. The ALJ found Parent's testimony unreliable on multiple issues because it was contradicted by her own prior statements to outside agencies, by Student's own testimony, and by District witnesses. If you go to hearing, be consistent and document your concerns in real time — contradictions in your account can undermine otherwise valid claims.