Manteca District Wins Most Claims, But Must Provide 448 Hours of Tutoring and Counseling for Blank IEP Goals

What Happened

Student is an 11-year-old boy with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), combined type, who was adopted at three months old after being exposed to methamphetamine and marijuana in utero. He has average cognitive ability but has always struggled with reading, writing, math, and managing his behavior. By the end of third grade, Student was reading at a first-grade level, received the lowest possible grades in all academic subjects, and was frequently suspended for hitting, spitting, throwing objects, and disrupting class. Despite the school recommending a special day class (SDC), Parents initially refused, and Student remained in regular education through third grade. Both Parents eventually agreed to an SDC placement for fourth grade, which is the last IEP they signed.

Parents filed for due process in December 2015, arguing that the district should have kept Student in regular education all along, that his IEPs were riddled with procedural defects, and that Manteca had discriminated against him through improper testing. The district filed its own case seeking authorization to reassess Student after Parents refused to consent. By the time of hearing, Parents had withdrawn Student from school entirely after his behavior escalated dramatically in fifth grade — including incidents involving a rusty nail, a swastika drawing, threats of violence, and police being called to campus.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ rejected Parents' core argument that Student belonged in regular education. Applying the four-factor test from Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H., the ALJ found that Student received no meaningful academic benefit in regular education, made no social connections with peers, and significantly disrupted the classroom for everyone around him. His brief periods of acceptable behavior during one mainstream class period per day were not a reliable predictor of how he would perform in full-time general education. No independent educator or professional supported the Parents' position; Parent K. was their only witness.

The ALJ also rejected claims of predetermination, finding no evidence that Manteca arrived at IEP meetings with a "take it or leave it" attitude. Manteca repeatedly deferred to Parent K.'s objections, left Student in regular education against its own recommendations, and never sought a court order to force the transfer. The ESY claim also failed because there was no evidence Student met California's technical eligibility requirements for extended school year services. The Larry P. racial testing violation — where a school psychologist used IQ tests not permitted for African-American students — was found to be inadvertent, was promptly corrected by removing the results, and caused no actual harm or decisions.

However, the ALJ found one significant violation: the IEP goals in Student's governing May 2014 IEP were so poorly written that they were effectively unmeasurable. The reading comprehension goal left the target words-per-minute and accuracy percentage completely blank. The math reasoning goal had the same problem. The behavioral goal's baseline contained an incomprehensible sentence that made it impossible to measure any starting point. Progress reports either had blank numbers or reported on entirely different skills than what the goals required. Because these goals were never fixed, Parents and the IEP team had no reliable way to evaluate whether Student was actually making progress — a failure the ALJ found denied Student a FAPE throughout fourth and fifth grade.

What Was Ordered

1. Manteca must provide 280 hours of one-to-one reading tutoring by a credentialed special education teacher, using a research-based program (such as LindaMood Bell or Edmark) chosen in consultation with Parents.
2. Manteca must provide 112 hours of one-to-one math tutoring by a credentialed special education teacher, using a research-based program (such as Making Math Real) chosen in consultation with Parents.
3. Manteca must provide 56 hours of counseling by a licensed or credentialed counselor, selected by Parents from a list of at least three options provided by Manteca.
4. All services must begin within 45 days of the order and must be used by June 30, 2020. Parents control the scheduling.
5. These compensatory services follow Student even if the family moves out of the district.
6. Manteca is authorized to conduct reassessments of Student without parental consent.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Blank spaces in IEP goals are not a technicality — they are a denial of FAPE. This case shows that goals with missing numbers (target rates, accuracy percentages, trial counts) are legally meaningless. Parents should carefully review every goal and demand that all blanks be filled in before signing an IEP.

2. Progress reports must actually measure what the goal requires. If your child's IEP goal says they will improve in reading fluency but the progress report only mentions "participation," that mismatch is a red flag. Reports that describe different skills than the goals require are inadequate and can form the basis of a FAPE denial claim.

3. Requesting regular education placement requires real evidence, not just preference. The ALJ found that Parents had no supporting expert testimony and relied heavily on one parent's observations. If you believe your child belongs in a less restrictive setting, gather data, get independent evaluations, and have professionals who can testify to support your position.

4. A district can reassess your child without your consent if conditions warrant it. If your child needs special education services, you generally cannot refuse all reassessments. If you disagree with an assessment after it is done, you have the right to request an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) at district expense.

5. Compensatory education is awarded based on what the student lost, not a rigid hour-for-hour formula. The ALJ in this case calculated relief based on the number of school days affected and what a reasonable tutoring schedule would look like — not simply counting every missed hour. Parents seeking compensatory education should present evidence at hearing about what their child needs to make up for lost time.