Parent Loses Bid for Private School Tuition After Districts Justified Special Day Class Placement

What Happened

Student was an eight-year-old with a speech and language impairment enrolled by Parent in a private Catholic school (St. James) located within the boundaries of Davis Joint Unified School District, while the family actually resided in Winters Joint Unified School District. Davis conducted speech-language and academic achievement assessments in early 2014 and convened an IEP team meeting in February 2014. Based on those assessments, the team — including representatives from both Davis and Winters — recommended that Student be placed in a special day class (SDC) for students with mild to moderate learning disabilities for 90 percent of his school day, with 10 percent in general education for nonacademic activities like recess and PE. Parent was surprised and upset by this recommendation, observed a Winters SDC classroom (on a day when the regular teacher was absent), and ultimately declined the IEP. She applied for an interdistrict transfer to Davis, which was denied, and re-enrolled Student at St. James. Parent also hired a private tutor who used the Orton-Gillingham reading method.

Parent later requested independent educational evaluations (IEEs), which Davis agreed to fund. An independent psychoeducational evaluation, speech-language evaluation, and assistive technology evaluation were all completed. A second IEP was developed in February and April 2015, again recommending SDC placement. Parent declined that IEP as well and filed for due process, seeking reimbursement for private school tuition and tutoring costs, prospective private school funding through high school, compensatory speech-language services, and mileage reimbursement.

What the ALJ Found

On Davis's assessments: Parent argued that the February 2014 speech-language and academic achievement test booklets were contaminated — that scores from other students may have been mixed in, based on inconsistencies in handwriting and identification on the booklets. The ALJ rejected these claims entirely. Both assessors explained the innocent reasons for the irregularities (a shared office, a red marker versus a red pen, a colleague who had briefly picked up a blank booklet), and their testimony was found persuasive and uncontradicted. The independent IEEs obtained by Parent actually confirmed findings consistent with those of the district assessors.

On Winters's IEPs: The ALJ acknowledged that the February 2014 IEP had real procedural flaws — it was missing measurable annual goals, progress measurement descriptions, and procedures for evaluating educational benefit, because goal-writing was deferred to a planned follow-up meeting. However, the ALJ found these errors did not rise to a denial of FAPE because they did not deprive Student of educational opportunity or seriously interfere with Parent's ability to participate in the IEP process. Parent attended the meeting, was not prevented from participating, and quickly moved to observe the SDC and apply for an interdistrict transfer rather than raising concerns about the missing goals. The follow-up meeting never happened because Parent notified the districts she would only accept services from Davis.

On the 2015 IEPs, the ALJ found that Parent had not actually provided the private tutor's progress report to either IEP team (it was dated three days after the first meeting), so the teams could not be faulted for failing to consider it. The ALJ also found that Winters was not required to name a specific reading program or methodology in the IEP — that choice is left to the district's discretion. Finally, the SDC placement was upheld as the least restrictive environment, supported by multiple credible expert witnesses who testified without contradiction.

What Was Ordered

1. All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
2. Davis prevailed on Issues 1 and 2 (assessment adequacy).
3. Winters prevailed on Issues 3 and 4 (FAPE, placement, and 2015 IEP challenges).

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Procedural IEP errors alone rarely win a case. The February 2014 IEP was missing required components — goals, progress measures, and benefit benchmarks — and the ALJ still ruled for the district. Under the IDEA, a procedural violation only matters if it actually cost the child educational opportunity or shut the parent out of meaningful participation. If you discover missing IEP components, document your objections in writing at the time and ask the district to fix them before walking away.

2. Your suspicions about testing irregularities must be supported by evidence. Parent raised legitimate-sounding concerns about the test booklets — different handwriting, incomplete identification — but had no expert or witness to contradict the assessors' explanations. If you believe an assessment was improperly administered, you have the right to an IEE at district expense. Use it, and have your independent assessor specifically address any procedural concerns.

3. Providing documents to an IEP team requires a paper trail. The ALJ found that Parent had not given the private tutor's progress report to the IEP teams, in part because there was no receipt stamp and the report was dated after the first meeting. When you bring documents to an IEP meeting, hand-deliver them with a written cover letter, ask for a dated receipt stamp, or send them in advance by certified mail so there is no dispute about whether the team received and reviewed them.

4. Districts are not required to use your preferred reading program. Parent wanted Orton-Gillingham specified in the IEP. The ALJ confirmed the long-standing legal rule that methodology choices belong to the district, as long as the overall program is appropriate. If you believe a specific methodology is educationally necessary for your child, gather expert evidence showing that no other approach can meet the child's needs — not just that your preferred method works well.