District Denied FAPE for Lack of 1-on-1 Instruction and Insufficient Speech Therapy

A 14-year-old student with multiple disabilities, including intellectual disability, apraxia of speech, seizures, and auditory processing disorder, attended Fountain Valley Unified School District. His parents challenged the June 2017 IEP, arguing it failed to offer appropriate goals, autism eligibility, placement, and related services. The ALJ found the district denied FAPE in two specific areas: failing to offer individualized one-on-one academic instruction and offering too few individual speech therapy sessions. The district prevailed on all other issues, including autism eligibility, social skills services, and behavior services.

What Happened

Student was a 14-year-old boy eligible for special education under the category of multiple disabilities. He had a history of seizures since age two, severe apraxia of speech (a disorder affecting his ability to form and say words), an auditory processing disorder, intellectual disability, and attention difficulties. His speech was largely unintelligible, and he needed intensive, individualized instruction to learn. Between 2014 and 2016, Student did not attend public school and instead received one-on-one academic and speech services at a private learning center called Pliha Speech & Learning Center, where he made meaningful progress. He returned to District's Talbert special day class in November 2016.

Parents filed for due process in November 2017, challenging District's June 2017 IEP. They argued District failed to offer appropriate academic goals, should have recognized Student as eligible under the autism category, placed him in an inappropriate classroom setting, and failed to offer sufficient related services including social skills, behavior support, and enough individual speech therapy. District filed its own due process case seeking the right to implement the IEP without parental consent. The cases were consolidated and heard over six days in March 2018.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of Student on two issues and in favor of District on the remaining issues.

District lost on placement: The evidence showed that Student could only make meaningful academic progress in English language arts through intensive one-on-one instruction. District's Talbert special day class provided mostly whole-group and small-group instruction, with only limited and unpredictable individual attention. The ALJ found the classroom setting was inappropriate because it did not guarantee Student the level of individualized instruction he demonstrably needed. Student's teachers at Pliha — who had worked with him for years — credibly testified that group instruction without prior one-on-one instruction would not work for Student, given his language impairment and auditory processing disorder. District's teachers, who had known Student only briefly, were found less credible on this point.

District lost on speech therapy: District offered two 50-minute individual speech sessions per week. The evidence showed Student had made progress under a prior settlement that provided three individual sessions per week. Given Student's severe apraxia, declining mean length of utterance between 2012 and 2016, and extremely low speech scores, the ALJ found the reduction to two sessions was not justified and denied Student a FAPE.

District prevailed on autism eligibility: Multiple assessments — including District's own 2012 and 2016 evaluations — found that Student's social behaviors that might resemble autism were better explained by his intellectual disability and language impairment. The ALJ agreed the evidence did not support adding autism as an eligibility category.

District prevailed on social skills, behavior services, and most goals: By June 2017, Student was engaging with peers, had friends, and met his socialization goal. The ALJ found the offered speech services adequately addressed his communication needs. Student did not demonstrate behaviors requiring formal behavioral intervention beyond what the IEP already provided.

What Was Ordered

District must reimburse Parents $2,697.50 for the 30 extra minutes per day of educational therapy at Pliha between September 7 and December 22, 2017, that District had refused to cover.
District must reimburse Parents for 1.5 hours per day of Pliha services (not to exceed 91 school days) between December 22, 2017 and the date of the decision, based on submitted invoices at $85/hour.
District must fund 105.50 hours of compensatory individual academic instruction in English language arts, to be provided by a non-public agency of Parents' choosing, at $85/hour, usable through December 30, 2019.
If the parties cannot agree at the 2018 annual IEP, Student's stay-put placement must include two hours per day of individualized reading and writing instruction during the school year and one hour per day during extended school year, plus three 50-minute individual speech sessions per week.
District's own requested remedies — the right to implement the IEP without consent — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Document what works before the IEP meeting. This case turned heavily on evidence that Student made progress only with one-on-one instruction. Years of detailed records from Pliha — showing exactly how Student was taught and what progress he made — were critical to winning the placement issue. Keep written records of private services, methods used, and student progress.
If your child is making progress in a specific setting or with a specific service level, the district needs a strong reason to reduce it. The ALJ found it unacceptable for District to cut individual speech sessions from three to two per week when the evidence showed three sessions drove Student's progress. A district cannot simply reduce services at an IEP meeting without justification tied to the student's actual data.
Autism eligibility is not automatically established by diagnosis letters or parental concern. Even though a physician had noted possible autism years earlier, the ALJ found that Student's behaviors were better explained by his other disabilities. Parents seeking autism eligibility need assessment data specifically supporting that category, not just behaviors that overlap with autism.
Placement must be specific — a classroom type alone may not be enough. The district offered a "special day class," but the ALJ found this was insufficient because it did not guarantee individualized instruction in the required amount. When your child needs a specific intensity of instruction, the IEP must spell that out explicitly, not leave it to chance within a general classroom structure.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of Student on two issues and in favor of District on the remaining issues.

What Was Ordered

District must reimburse Parents $2,697.50 for the 30 extra minutes per day of educational therapy at Pliha between September 7 and December 22, 2017, that District had refused to cover.
District must reimburse Parents for 1.5 hours per day of Pliha services (not to exceed 91 school days) between December 22, 2017 and the date of the decision, based on submitted invoices at $85/hour.
District must fund 105.50 hours of compensatory individual academic instruction in English language arts, to be provided by a non-public agency of Parents' choosing, at $85/hour, usable through December 30, 2019.
If the parties cannot agree at the 2018 annual IEP, Student's stay-put placement must include two hours per day of individualized reading and writing instruction during the school year and one hour per day during extended school year, plus three 50-minute individual speech sessions per week.
District's own requested remedies — the right to implement the IEP without consent — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Document what works before the IEP meeting. This case turned heavily on evidence that Student made progress only with one-on-one instruction. Years of detailed records from Pliha — showing exactly how Student was taught and what progress he made — were critical to winning the placement issue. Keep written records of private services, methods used, and student progress.
If your child is making progress in a specific setting or with a specific service level, the district needs a strong reason to reduce it. The ALJ found it unacceptable for District to cut individual speech sessions from three to two per week when the evidence showed three sessions drove Student's progress. A district cannot simply reduce services at an IEP meeting without justification tied to the student's actual data.
Autism eligibility is not automatically established by diagnosis letters or parental concern. Even though a physician had noted possible autism years earlier, the ALJ found that Student's behaviors were better explained by his other disabilities. Parents seeking autism eligibility need assessment data specifically supporting that category, not just behaviors that overlap with autism.
Placement must be specific — a classroom type alone may not be enough. The district offered a "special day class," but the ALJ found this was insufficient because it did not guarantee individualized instruction in the required amount. When your child needs a specific intensity of instruction, the IEP must spell that out explicitly, not leave it to chance within a general classroom structure.