District's Reading Program Upheld Over Parent's Demand for Lindamood-Bell Placement

A 13-year-old student with a specific learning disability and auditory processing disorder challenged Twin Rivers Unified School District's reading program, arguing it was inadequate and that the IEP must include instruction at Lindamood-Bell Learning Center. The ALJ found that the district's special day class reading program was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit and denied all relief. The parent failed to present sufficient evidence that the district's offered program was inadequate.

What Happened

Student is a 13-year-old girl who qualifies for special education under the category of specific learning disability, with an auditory processing disorder that significantly impacts her reading development. Student is also an English Language Learner whose home language is Spanish. During the 2013–2014 school year, Parent kept Student out of public school entirely due to concerns about the school environment, and Twin Rivers agreed to provide Student with four hours per school day of one-on-one reading instruction at Lindamood-Bell Learning Center. Student made measurable progress in reading during that time.

For the 2014–2015 school year, Twin Rivers offered Student placement in a special day class at Rio Linda Preparatory Academy, with specialized reading instruction built into the school day, along with speech and language services and counseling. Parent rejected this IEP because he wanted the district to continue funding Lindamood-Bell instruction. Parent filed for due process, arguing the district's reading program was inadequate and that a FAPE required placement at Lindamood-Bell. Claims related to prior school years were excluded from the hearing because Parent had previously signed a settlement agreement waiving those claims.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor, finding that Student did not meet her burden of proving the district denied her a FAPE. The ALJ examined the June 2014 IEP and found it adequately addressed Student's unique reading needs. The IEP was built on a valid academic assessment using the Woodcock-Johnson III, which Parent did not challenge. The IEP included reading comprehension and fluency goals, 240 minutes daily of academic instruction in a special day class, accommodations for Student's auditory processing disorder, and weekly speech and language services.

The special day class implemented structured reading instruction using the National Geographic Insider program and Read Naturally, along with individualized and small-group instruction. Teachers monitored Student's progress, and evidence showed that Student's reading comprehension, decoding, and fluency improved during the time she attended. The Lindamood-Bell center director who testified did not contradict the adequacy of the district's IEP or reading goals — she simply recommended additional Lindamood-Bell instruction, which is not the same as proving the district's program was insufficient.

The ALJ emphasized a critical legal principle: a school district is not required to place a student in a parent's preferred program, even if that program might produce greater benefit. The law requires only that the district's program be "reasonably calculated to provide some educational benefit" — not that it be the best possible option. Parent's testimony focused almost entirely on his preference for Lindamood-Bell rather than identifying specific deficiencies in what the district offered.

What Was Ordered

All relief sought by Student was denied.
Twin Rivers was found to be the prevailing party on the sole issue heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

Preference for a specific program is not enough — you must show the district's program is inadequate. The law does not require districts to fund a parent's preferred placement, even one that worked well before. To win a FAPE claim based on methodology or placement, parents must present evidence showing the district's actual program fails to meet the student's needs — not just that another program is better.
Settlement agreements are binding and can limit what you can challenge later. Parent had previously signed an agreement waiving claims through the end of the prior school year. This eliminated a large portion of the potential case. Before signing any settlement or agreement with a district, parents should carefully review what rights and claims are being waived.
Expert witnesses must directly address the IEP's adequacy, not just advocate for their own program. The Lindamood-Bell center director testified but did not contradict the adequacy of the district's IEP or reading goals. To be effective, an outside expert witness must explain specifically why the district's program is insufficient for this particular student — not just recommend their own services.
Student absences and school refusal can complicate a FAPE case. Student had been absent from school since November 2014 for reasons unrelated to the case, and Parent had also kept Student out of public school entirely the prior year. These facts made it harder to argue the district's program was failing Student, since Student had limited exposure to it. Consistent school attendance strengthens a parent's ability to document whether a program is actually working.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

All relief sought by Student was denied.
Twin Rivers was found to be the prevailing party on the sole issue heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

Preference for a specific program is not enough — you must show the district's program is inadequate. The law does not require districts to fund a parent's preferred placement, even one that worked well before. To win a FAPE claim based on methodology or placement, parents must present evidence showing the district's actual program fails to meet the student's needs — not just that another program is better.
Settlement agreements are binding and can limit what you can challenge later. Parent had previously signed an agreement waiving claims through the end of the prior school year. This eliminated a large portion of the potential case. Before signing any settlement or agreement with a district, parents should carefully review what rights and claims are being waived.
Expert witnesses must directly address the IEP's adequacy, not just advocate for their own program. The Lindamood-Bell center director testified but did not contradict the adequacy of the district's IEP or reading goals. To be effective, an outside expert witness must explain specifically why the district's program is insufficient for this particular student — not just recommend their own services.
Student absences and school refusal can complicate a FAPE case. Student had been absent from school since November 2014 for reasons unrelated to the case, and Parent had also kept Student out of public school entirely the prior year. These facts made it harder to argue the district's program was failing Student, since Student had limited exposure to it. Consistent school attendance strengthens a parent's ability to document whether a program is actually working.