District Wins: No FAPE Violation for Summer Speech Therapy Gap

A parent filed a due process complaint against Garvey School District, arguing that failing to provide speech therapy during the five-week summer gap between the end of extended school year (ESY) services and the start of the regular school year denied her daughter a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The ALJ found in favor of the district, concluding that the parent presented no credible evidence that the gap would cause regression. All requests for relief, including reimbursement for privately funded summer speech therapy sessions, were denied.

What Happened

Student is an eight-year-old girl with Down syndrome who is eligible for special education under the category of intellectual disability. She has significant global delays, functioning cognitively in approximately the 12–24 month developmental range. Student is nonverbal but communicates using signs, picture systems, and sound approximations. She has received speech and language therapy through Garvey School District since enrolling at age three. Parent disagreed with the district on several fronts: she believed Student was only moderately (not severely) intellectually disabled, that Student should also qualify under the autism eligibility category, and that Student needed speech therapy during the roughly five-week summer gap between the end of ESY services (which ran through late July) and the start of the new school year in September.

In prior years, the Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center (ELARC) had funded private speech therapy during that summer gap. In summer 2012, ELARC declined to do so. Parent privately paid for four speech therapy sessions at $100 each and sought reimbursement from the district. Parent argued that without these services, Student would regress, particularly on speech production goals. District disagreed, arguing that its ESY offer was sufficient and that a five-week break would not cause regression given Student's overall developmental profile.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district. The central question was narrow: did the district deny Student a FAPE by not offering speech therapy services during the five-week summer gap in 2012? The ALJ found that Parent failed to meet her burden of proof on this issue.

The district's speech language pathologist, who had worked with Student for several years, testified that she had never observed meaningful differences in Student's performance after winter, spring, or summer breaks when Student was healthy. She did not expect regression during the summer gap and actually felt Student might benefit from a short break. The school psychologist echoed this view, opining that a five-week summer break would have no meaningful impact given Student's global delays and the fact that her communication skills were already commensurate with her developmental level. These opinions were further supported by the independent assessment conducted by the California Department of Education's Diagnostic Center.

In contrast, Parent's evidence was found unpersuasive. Parent offered her own opinion and a written declaration from the private summer therapist — but the therapist's declaration stated only the conclusion that Student would regress, without providing any factual basis for that opinion. The therapist did not testify at hearing. The ALJ gave the declaration little weight. The ALJ also noted that several of Parent's other arguments — including that she was unlawfully excluded from District speech sessions, that the district improperly abandoned certain speech goals, and that Student's eligibility category was wrong — were outside the scope of the due process complaint as filed. Because the district was not given proper notice of these issues, the ALJ could not rule on them.

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
Parent's request for reimbursement of $400 in privately funded summer speech therapy sessions was denied.
The district was found to have provided FAPE through its ESY offer.

Why This Matters for Parents

To win a summer gap or ESY claim, you need evidence of likely regression — not just the opinion that a break is harmful. The ALJ rejected Parent's claim largely because the private therapist's declaration was conclusory: it said Student would regress but explained no factual basis for why. If you are making a regression argument, gather data — progress notes, session records, before-and-after comparisons — that concretely show how breaks have affected your child in the past.
Your due process complaint defines the boundaries of what the ALJ can decide. Parent raised several important concerns at hearing — being excluded from therapy sessions, the district dropping speech production goals, the wrong eligibility category — but because these were not included in the original complaint, the ALJ could not award any relief on them. Before filing, carefully identify every issue you want addressed and include it in writing.
District staff who have worked with your child over multiple years carry significant weight. The ALJ credited the speech pathologist and school psychologist precisely because they had years of direct, consistent experience with Student. If you disagree with district staff observations, consider retaining an independent expert who can testify at hearing and explain the basis for a different conclusion.
A private therapist's written declaration is much weaker than live testimony. The summer therapist submitted a declaration but did not appear at hearing to be questioned. The ALJ gave it minimal weight. If an outside expert's opinion is critical to your case, plan for that person to testify in person or by video so the ALJ can assess their credibility and reasoning.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
Parent's request for reimbursement of $400 in privately funded summer speech therapy sessions was denied.
The district was found to have provided FAPE through its ESY offer.

Why This Matters for Parents

To win a summer gap or ESY claim, you need evidence of likely regression — not just the opinion that a break is harmful. The ALJ rejected Parent's claim largely because the private therapist's declaration was conclusory: it said Student would regress but explained no factual basis for why. If you are making a regression argument, gather data — progress notes, session records, before-and-after comparisons — that concretely show how breaks have affected your child in the past.
Your due process complaint defines the boundaries of what the ALJ can decide. Parent raised several important concerns at hearing — being excluded from therapy sessions, the district dropping speech production goals, the wrong eligibility category — but because these were not included in the original complaint, the ALJ could not award any relief on them. Before filing, carefully identify every issue you want addressed and include it in writing.
District staff who have worked with your child over multiple years carry significant weight. The ALJ credited the speech pathologist and school psychologist precisely because they had years of direct, consistent experience with Student. If you disagree with district staff observations, consider retaining an independent expert who can testify at hearing and explain the basis for a different conclusion.
A private therapist's written declaration is much weaker than live testimony. The summer therapist submitted a declaration but did not appear at hearing to be questioned. The ALJ gave it minimal weight. If an outside expert's opinion is critical to your case, plan for that person to testify in person or by video so the ALJ can assess their credibility and reasoning.