District Wins: Parent's Requests for Typing and Keep It Simple Program Denied

Parents of a six-year-old boy with autism and speech/language disorder challenged San Diego Unified's November 2017 IEP, arguing it had inadequate academic and communication goals and failed to include typing and the Keep It Simple program as related services. The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on all issues, finding the IEP goals were clear and measurable, the disputed services were not required for educational benefit, and parents had been given meaningful opportunities to participate in IEP development. All relief sought by the family was denied.

What Happened

Student was a six-year-old boy with autism, speech and language disorder, hypotonia, and delayed motor coordination. He was largely non-verbal and relied heavily on an iPad-based augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) device to communicate. Student was enrolled at Hage Elementary School in San Diego Unified, where he was placed in a moderate/severe special education classroom. In early 2017, Parents separately enrolled Student at Alternative Teaching Strategies, a private agency that used a software program called "Keep It Simple" — a visual communication tool designed to teach children with autism to type and communicate using pictures and keyboards. Student attended the private program three days a week for two hours a day, in addition to attending Hage Elementary.

In November 2017, San Diego Unified held a triennial IEP team meeting and proposed a new IEP with academic goals in reading and math, three communication goals, and a full package of services including speech-language therapy, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education. Parents attended the meeting but did not formally request changes to the goals or ask that typing or the Keep It Simple program be added as related services. Parents ultimately did not consent to the IEP and, in January 2018, unilaterally enrolled Student at World Class Learning Academy — a program tied to Alternative Teaching Strategies — and sought reimbursement from the district for the cost (totaling $10,920). Parents filed for due process in March 2018, claiming the IEP was inadequate and that the district denied them meaningful participation.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on every issue. On the IEP goals, the ALJ found that the reading and math goals were sufficiently clear and measurable, even though they used terms like "facilitated support" and "developing the ability." The teacher who worked directly with Student every day explained these terms at the IEP meeting, and two expert witnesses — including one called by Student — agreed the goals were workable. The ALJ gave significant weight to the classroom teacher's firsthand knowledge of Student's abilities and found that the absence of a separate phonics goal was not a FAPE violation because there was no evidence phonics wasn't being addressed in the broader curriculum.

On the request for typing and the Keep It Simple program as related services, the ALJ found that Student was making reasonable progress under his existing IEP without these services. The key legal question was not whether the private program was better — it may well have been — but whether the district's program was adequate to provide meaningful educational benefit. The ALJ found it was. Critically, the ALJ also noted that Parents never clearly and formally requested these services be added to the IEP before or during the November 2017 IEP meeting. On the parental participation claim, the ALJ found that the district had gone out of its way to involve Parents — sharing draft IEP documents in advance, inviting input, and scheduling two additional IEP meetings after Parents indicated they might not consent — but Parents declined to attend those follow-up meetings or respond to the district's outreach.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
San Diego Unified prevailed on all issues heard and decided.
No compensatory education, tuition reimbursement, or changes to the IEP were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

Put your requests in writing, clearly and specifically. The ALJ found that Parents never formally asked the district to add typing or the Keep It Simple program to the IEP. Inviting a teacher to observe a private program is not the same as requesting a specific service or assessment in writing. If you want something in your child's IEP, say so explicitly — ideally in a letter or email — before and during the IEP meeting.
Share outside information with the district proactively. Parents had meaningful data about how Student was performing at the private program, but never shared it with the district. The ALJ repeatedly noted that the district could only develop goals based on the information it actually had. If your child is thriving somewhere else, document it and bring that evidence to the IEP team — don't assume the district will reach out on its own.
Attend follow-up IEP meetings, even when you're frustrated. After Parents signaled they might not consent to the IEP, the district scheduled two additional meetings to address their concerns. Parents skipped both and stopped responding to communications. The ALJ cited this as evidence that the district provided adequate participation opportunities. Staying engaged, even in disagreement, protects your legal position.
"Better" is not the legal standard — "adequate" is. The ALJ acknowledged that Student appeared to benefit from the private Keep It Simple program. But under the law, a district only has to offer an education reasonably calculated to provide meaningful benefit — not the best possible program. If you believe a private program is superior, you need to show the district's program is actually inadequate, not just that your preferred option produces better results.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
San Diego Unified prevailed on all issues heard and decided.
No compensatory education, tuition reimbursement, or changes to the IEP were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

Put your requests in writing, clearly and specifically. The ALJ found that Parents never formally asked the district to add typing or the Keep It Simple program to the IEP. Inviting a teacher to observe a private program is not the same as requesting a specific service or assessment in writing. If you want something in your child's IEP, say so explicitly — ideally in a letter or email — before and during the IEP meeting.
Share outside information with the district proactively. Parents had meaningful data about how Student was performing at the private program, but never shared it with the district. The ALJ repeatedly noted that the district could only develop goals based on the information it actually had. If your child is thriving somewhere else, document it and bring that evidence to the IEP team — don't assume the district will reach out on its own.
Attend follow-up IEP meetings, even when you're frustrated. After Parents signaled they might not consent to the IEP, the district scheduled two additional meetings to address their concerns. Parents skipped both and stopped responding to communications. The ALJ cited this as evidence that the district provided adequate participation opportunities. Staying engaged, even in disagreement, protects your legal position.
"Better" is not the legal standard — "adequate" is. The ALJ acknowledged that Student appeared to benefit from the private Keep It Simple program. But under the law, a district only has to offer an education reasonably calculated to provide meaningful benefit — not the best possible program. If you believe a private program is superior, you need to show the district's program is actually inadequate, not just that your preferred option produces better results.