Compton Unified Partially Denies FAPE to Student with Dyslexia and Language Deficits

A parent filed for due process against Compton Unified School District on behalf of her daughter, an 11-year-old with a specific learning disability and ADHD. The ALJ found that the district committed multiple procedural and substantive violations — including failing to assess speech and language needs, omitting a reading fluency goal, and offering insufficient language therapy — but also ruled in the district's favor on many claims. The student was awarded reimbursement for two independent evaluations, partial tuition at a private school, and 31 hours of compensatory speech-language services.

What Happened

Student was an 11-year-old girl attending Compton Unified schools who struggled significantly with reading, writing, and attention from first grade onward. Her Parent and Grandmother repeatedly raised concerns with school staff beginning in the 2011–2012 school year. Despite years of academic failure — including being held back in second grade — the district did not conduct a special education assessment until April 2014, after Parent submitted a written request. Student was ultimately found eligible for special education in July 2014 under the categories of specific learning disability (due to phonological processing deficits) and other health impairment (due to ADHD). The district developed IEPs in July 2014, October 2014, June 2015, and October 2015, but Parent believed those IEPs were inadequate. In October 2015, Parent unilaterally enrolled Student at The Prentice School, a private school in Tustin, California, because she felt the district's IEPs did not offer an appropriate education.

Parent filed for due process in November 2015 raising 18 separate issues, including claims that the district failed its child find duty, conducted an incomplete assessment, wrote deficient IEPs, failed to provide speech-language services, and predetermined Student's placement. The hearing spanned seven days in January 2016.

What the ALJ Found

The decision was split — Student won on some issues, and the district won on others.

Where the district violated the law: The district failed to respond to Parent's April 2013 written request for an assessment and did not provide required procedural safeguards notices. Once Student was found eligible, the district's IEPs for July and October 2014 contained a misleading present level of performance for communication, claiming Student's skills were "adequate" when its own test data showed a score at the 1st percentile on an auditory reasoning measure. The IEPs also failed to include a reading fluency goal — a critical gap, given that Student read at only 50–60 words per minute when the expected rate was 125. The July and October 2014 IEPs did not offer any speech-language services at all, despite evidence of severe deficits in language processing. The June and October 2015 IEPs offered language services, but at too low a level — three hours per month instead of the ninety minutes per week the ALJ found appropriate. The district also failed to update present levels for reading, math, and writing in the 2015 IEPs, instead copying outdated information from the prior year.

Where the district prevailed: The ALJ found no predetermination of placement. The district's psychological auditory processing assessment was appropriate for the information it had at the time. The district was not required to identify Student as eligible for special education before July 2014 because Student presented no expert testimony establishing she was eligible earlier. Claims about extended school year services were denied because Student offered no evidence of regression or limited recoupment. The ALJ also found that the district's general education teacher for the June 2015 IEP meeting was adequate under the circumstances.

What Was Ordered

District must amend Student's IEP to increase speech-language services to three sessions per week, 30 minutes per session, in a small group format.
District must reimburse Parent $1,500 for an independent evaluation by Dr. Lucker in language and auditory processing.
District must reimburse Parent $405 for an independent psychoeducational evaluation through UCLA.
District must reimburse Parent $4,842.90 for tuition paid to The Prentice School through the last day of hearing.
District must provide Student with 31 hours of compensatory speech-language services in addition to IEP services, to be used by August 30, 2017. If Student is not enrolled in a district school, Parent may choose the provider and bill the district.
All other requests for relief — including prospective placement at Prentice, extended school year services, and additional compensatory tutoring — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Put your requests in writing — and keep copies. The ALJ extended the statute of limitations in this case because Parent's April 2013 written letter requesting an evaluation triggered the district's legal obligations. Oral requests are much harder to prove and may not trigger the same legal duties. Always follow up verbal conversations with a written letter or email.
A present level of performance that says your child is "adequate" when the data says otherwise is a legal violation. The district's own testing showed Student scored at the 1st percentile in auditory reasoning, yet the IEP said her communication skills were "adequate." Parents should scrutinize present levels carefully and ask for the actual scores behind any general descriptions.
Districts must offer goals for every area of unique need — including reading fluency. The ALJ found a FAPE denial specifically because the district never wrote a reading fluency goal, even though fluency was clearly identified as an area where Student was significantly behind. If your child has an area of documented weakness, ask why there is no goal targeting it.
Reimbursement for a private school placement requires showing the private school was appropriate — not just that the district's IEP was wrong. Student was reimbursed for Prentice tuition only through the last day of hearing, and only as compensatory education for specific violations. The ALJ declined to order ongoing placement at Prentice because Student did not prove her needs could not be met in a district school. Parents considering private placement should document how the private school specifically addresses needs the district cannot meet.
Independent evaluations are reimbursable when the district fails to either fund them or go to a hearing to defend its own assessments. The district was ordered to reimburse Parent for two private evaluations because it neither offered to fund them nor challenged them through due process. If you request an IEE and the district doesn't respond properly, that inaction can cost the district money.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The decision was split — Student won on some issues, and the district won on others.

What Was Ordered

District must amend Student's IEP to increase speech-language services to three sessions per week, 30 minutes per session, in a small group format.
District must reimburse Parent $1,500 for an independent evaluation by Dr. Lucker in language and auditory processing.
District must reimburse Parent $405 for an independent psychoeducational evaluation through UCLA.
District must reimburse Parent $4,842.90 for tuition paid to The Prentice School through the last day of hearing.
District must provide Student with 31 hours of compensatory speech-language services in addition to IEP services, to be used by August 30, 2017. If Student is not enrolled in a district school, Parent may choose the provider and bill the district.
All other requests for relief — including prospective placement at Prentice, extended school year services, and additional compensatory tutoring — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Put your requests in writing — and keep copies. The ALJ extended the statute of limitations in this case because Parent's April 2013 written letter requesting an evaluation triggered the district's legal obligations. Oral requests are much harder to prove and may not trigger the same legal duties. Always follow up verbal conversations with a written letter or email.
A present level of performance that says your child is "adequate" when the data says otherwise is a legal violation. The district's own testing showed Student scored at the 1st percentile in auditory reasoning, yet the IEP said her communication skills were "adequate." Parents should scrutinize present levels carefully and ask for the actual scores behind any general descriptions.
Districts must offer goals for every area of unique need — including reading fluency. The ALJ found a FAPE denial specifically because the district never wrote a reading fluency goal, even though fluency was clearly identified as an area where Student was significantly behind. If your child has an area of documented weakness, ask why there is no goal targeting it.
Reimbursement for a private school placement requires showing the private school was appropriate — not just that the district's IEP was wrong. Student was reimbursed for Prentice tuition only through the last day of hearing, and only as compensatory education for specific violations. The ALJ declined to order ongoing placement at Prentice because Student did not prove her needs could not be met in a district school. Parents considering private placement should document how the private school specifically addresses needs the district cannot meet.
Independent evaluations are reimbursable when the district fails to either fund them or go to a hearing to defend its own assessments. The district was ordered to reimburse Parent for two private evaluations because it neither offered to fund them nor challenged them through due process. If you request an IEE and the district doesn't respond properly, that inaction can cost the district money.