LAUSD Prevails: Parent's Claims for Private School Reimbursement and IEE Denied

What Happened

Student was a 16-year-old, 11th grader attending Westmark School, a private school in Encino specializing in language-based learning disabilities. Parent was paying for this placement out of pocket — Student had never attended a Los Angeles Unified public school. In November 2017, Parent enrolled Student with LAUSD and consented to a special education assessment. Over the following months, LAUSD held multiple lengthy IEP team meetings (January and February 2018), but the process stalled when Parent and her attorney walked out of a March 2018 meeting, believing the district had predetermined Student's eligibility as "autistic-like characteristics." Parent filed a due process complaint, and a prior OAH decision in June 2018 found no predetermination. Parent did not re-engage with LAUSD until November 2018, this time seeking an offer of FAPE primarily so she could pursue tuition reimbursement for Westmark School. LAUSD completed the IEP on February 8, 2019, qualifying Student under "specific learning disability" and offering placement in a special day class program at Reseda Charter High School.

Parent then filed this due process complaint, arguing that LAUSD's IEP goals were inappropriate, the special day class placement denied Student access to the general education curriculum, the teaching methods were inadequate, the classroom environment was too noisy for Student's auditory processing needs, and that Student was entitled to reimbursement for both private school tuition and an independent psychological evaluation by Dr. Freeman. After a five-day hearing, ALJ Tara Doss denied all of Student's claims.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that LAUSD did not deny Student a FAPE on any of the issues raised. On the timing issue, LAUSD held the first IEP team meeting just five days late (65 days instead of 60, not counting winter break), but the ALJ found this minor delay caused no actual harm to Student, who was already privately placed by parental choice.

On goals and objectives, the ALJ found LAUSD's annual goals were directly tied to Student's present levels of performance, were aligned with California's general education content standards for Student's grade level, and addressed real needs identified in multiple assessments. The fact that Parent disagreed with the goals did not make them inappropriate.

On placement, the ALJ found the special day class program at Reseda Charter High School was appropriate and represented the least restrictive environment. Classes were small (6–16 students), used the same curriculum and textbooks as general education classes, met UC/CSU admission ("a-g") requirements, and offered opportunities to interact with nondisabled peers — something Westmark School did not provide. Witnesses who testified that Westmark was superior were found unpersuasive because they had never observed Student in a public school setting or visited Reseda Charter High School.

On teaching methodology, the ALJ noted that LAUSD is not required to use a specific method like Lindamood Bell. Parent's preference for a particular program does not establish an IDEA violation.

On accommodations and noise, the ALJ credited LAUSD's educational audiologist, who had observed Student in multiple classroom settings and found that background noise did not prevent him from understanding instruction. The IEP included several visual and auditory supports tailored to Student's needs.

On the independent evaluation, the ALJ found Parent never formally disagreed with LAUSD's assessments or requested a publicly funded independent educational evaluation (IEE). Because LAUSD also did not deny a FAPE, reimbursement for Dr. Freeman's evaluation was denied on both grounds.

What Was Ordered

1. All of Student's claims for relief were denied.
2. Student was not entitled to reimbursement for private school tuition at Westmark School for any of the requested school years (2017–2018, 2018–2019, or 2019–2020).
3. Student was not entitled to reimbursement for the independent psychological evaluation conducted by Dr. Freeman.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Walking away from the IEP process can seriously harm your case. Parent and her attorney left a March 2018 IEP meeting and refused to continue for months. The ALJ held that LAUSD was not responsible for delays caused by Parent's own refusal to participate. If you have concerns about predetermination or eligibility, raise them inside the IEP meeting and document them — don't simply disengage.

2. To get reimbursement for a private evaluation, you must first formally disagree with the district's assessment. The right to a publicly funded independent educational evaluation (IEE) is triggered when a parent disagrees with the district's evaluation. If you never tell the district you disagree, you lose that right. Put your disagreement in writing as soon as you have concerns about the quality of the district's assessment.

3. A district's placement offer is judged on its own merits, not compared to your preferred private school. The ALJ evaluated Reseda Charter High School's program on its own terms — class size, curriculum, credentials, supports — and found it adequate. Witnesses who only knew Westmark School and had never visited the public school placement were given little weight. If you want to challenge a district's placement, gather evidence about the specific program being offered.

4. Preferring a specific teaching method is not enough to prove a FAPE denial. Student showed improvement using the Lindamood Bell program at Westmark School, but that alone was insufficient. To challenge methodology, you need evidence that the district's approach is not reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit — not just that another method works better.