San Marcos District Wins: Student with SLD and OHI Failed to Prove IEPs Denied FAPE Across Three Years

A parent challenged three consecutive IEPs (2018, 2019, and 2020) for a student with a specific learning disability and ADHD, arguing the district failed to provide sufficient specialized academic instruction, occupational therapy, executive functioning services, and speech-language services. ALJ Elsa H. Jones ruled in favor of San Marcos Unified on all nine issues, finding the IEPs were reasonably calculated to enable the student to make appropriate progress. All relief sought by the parent was denied.

What Happened

The student, a 13-year-old seventh grader with a specific learning disability (SLD) and other health impairment (OHI, primarily ADHD), attended San Marcos Unified from roughly fifth through seventh grade before his family relocated out of California in December 2020. The parent filed a due process complaint in November 2020, challenging three annual IEPs — dated November 2018, November 2019, and November 2020 — arguing that each one failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Specifically, the parent alleged the IEPs did not offer enough specialized academic instruction, omitted necessary related services in occupational therapy, executive functioning, and speech-language, and lacked adequate goals in reading, attention, executive functioning, task completion, and writing.

The district maintained that each IEP was appropriate. It pointed to the student's documented academic progress — including rising Lexile reading scores (from 530L in November 2018 to 1000L by September 2020), consistently passing or strong grades in general education classes, and the student meeting all of his IEP goals. The district also relied on its own assessments showing the student did not require occupational therapy or speech-language services beyond what was eventually added. The parent obtained independent assessments in occupational therapy (by Feeney) and psychoeducational functioning (by Dr. Gray), which recommended additional services and a specific reading program, but the ALJ found the district's assessors more credible and determined the independent assessors' recommendations were not required to be adopted.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on all nine issues. Key findings included:

Specialized academic instruction was sufficient across all three IEPs. The student met all of his annual goals, improved his Lexile reading level by several grade equivalents over the period, earned passing and often strong grades in general education classes, and was accessing a grade-level curriculum. The parent offered no evidence of how many minutes of instruction the student should have received instead, and no evidence that grades were inflated or that the student could not access the curriculum.
Occupational therapy was not required. The district exited the student from OT in 2016 after an assessment. A February 2020 district OT assessment by Adams concluded the student had no school-based OT needs that prevented curriculum access. The independent OT assessment by Feeney, conducted in July 2020, reached the opposite conclusion, but the ALJ found Adams's testimony and methodology more credible. No IEP team member — including parents — raised fine motor concerns at any of the annual meetings.
Executive functioning was adequately addressed through accommodations. All three IEPs contained robust accommodations targeting attention and executive functioning, including repeated and simplified instructions, flexible scheduling, separate testing settings, graphic organizers, extra time, and organizational support. The student met his on-task/work completion goal and his teachers consistently reported he could initiate and complete assignments with minimal support. The ALJ found no separate "executive functioning services" were required.
Speech-language services were appropriately timed. The student was exited from speech-language services in 2016 after an assessment found he was not eligible under that category. No team member raised communication concerns at the 2018 or 2019 annual meetings. When the district subsequently assessed the student's speech and language (at parent request), the school SLP initially found he was not eligible, but later — after reviewing the full assessment results at a May 2020 amendment meeting — determined that direct speech-language services to address written expression were warranted. Those services were added. The ALJ applied the "snapshot rule," finding the district was not required to add services before it had information indicating they were needed.
IEP goals were appropriate at each annual review. The student's goals addressed his actual areas of need as identified through data. Goals in occupational therapy, behavior, executive functioning, attention, and certain reading sub-skills were not required because the evidence showed those areas were either not deficient or were adequately addressed through accommodations. By the 2020 IEP, the student was reading at grade level (1000L Lexile), earning As, and reading goals were appropriately removed.
Independent assessors' recommendations were considered but not required to be adopted. The ALJ cited Westmoreland for the principle that an IEP team must consider but need not follow an independent expert's recommendations, as long as the IEP otherwise offers a FAPE.
Implementation issues were not before the ALJ. The parent's closing brief raised IEP implementation concerns, but those were not pleaded in the amended complaint and were therefore not considered.

What Was Ordered

All relief sought by the student and parent was denied.
No compensatory education was awarded.
No reimbursement for private tutoring or independent assessments was ordered.
The district was found to have offered a FAPE under all three challenged IEPs.

Why This Matters for Parents

Document your concerns in writing at every IEP meeting. The ALJ repeatedly noted that no parent or team member raised concerns about OT, speech-language, or executive functioning at the annual meetings. When services were later requested, the district could point to the absence of contemporaneous concern. If you believe your child needs a service, say so at the meeting and make sure it is recorded in the IEP notes — don't assume the team sees what you see.
Grades and goal progress are powerful evidence — in both directions. The district successfully defended all three IEPs largely because the student was meeting his goals and earning passing or strong grades. If your child appears to be doing well on paper but you believe something is wrong, gather supplemental evidence (such as how much parent help or private tutoring is required) and raise it explicitly. The ALJ noted that the student's "proficient" writing grades came "with assistance from his tutor" — but that fact was not developed into a winning legal argument.
Independent assessments must be backed up with expert testimony. The parent obtained independent assessments in OT and psychoeducational functioning. However, the OT assessor's credibility was found to be lower than the district assessor's, and no speech-language expert testified to contradict the district SLP. If you obtain an independent educational evaluation (IEE), make sure your expert is prepared to testify clearly and withstand cross-examination at hearing.
You must plead every issue before the hearing — closing briefs cannot add new claims. The parent tried to raise IEP implementation failures in the closing brief, but those issues had not been included in the amended complaint. The ALJ refused to consider them. Before you file or amend a due process complaint, make sure every concern you want decided is specifically written into the complaint itself.
The "snapshot rule" limits what districts can be held responsible for not knowing. Courts and ALJs evaluate IEPs based on what the team knew at the time the IEP was written — not what was learned later. If you have concerns that your child needs additional services, share that information with the district as early as possible and request assessments promptly, rather than waiting until after an IEP is already in place. Delays in sharing information can limit the remedies available to you.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on all nine issues. Key findings included:

Specialized academic instruction was sufficient across all three IEPs. The student met all of his annual goals, improved his Lexile reading level by several grade equivalents over the period, earned passing and often strong grades in general education classes, and was accessing a grade-level curriculum. The parent offered no evidence of how many minutes of instruction the student should have received instead, and no evidence that grades were inflated or that the student could not access the curriculum.
Occupational therapy was not required. The district exited the student from OT in 2016 after an assessment. A February 2020 district OT assessment by Adams concluded the student had no school-based OT needs that prevented curriculum access. The independent OT assessment by Feeney, conducted in July 2020, reached the opposite conclusion, but the ALJ found Adams's testimony and methodology more credible. No IEP team member — including parents — raised fine motor concerns at any of the annual meetings.
Executive functioning was adequately addressed through accommodations. All three IEPs contained robust accommodations targeting attention and executive functioning, including repeated and simplified instructions, flexible scheduling, separate testing settings, graphic organizers, extra time, and organizational support. The student met his on-task/work completion goal and his teachers consistently reported he could initiate and complete assignments with minimal support. The ALJ found no separate "executive functioning services" were required.
Speech-language services were appropriately timed. The student was exited from speech-language services in 2016 after an assessment found he was not eligible under that category. No team member raised communication concerns at the 2018 or 2019 annual meetings. When the district subsequently assessed the student's speech and language (at parent request), the school SLP initially found he was not eligible, but later — after reviewing the full assessment results at a May 2020 amendment meeting — determined that direct speech-language services to address written expression were warranted. Those services were added. The ALJ applied the "snapshot rule," finding the district was not required to add services before it had information indicating they were needed.
IEP goals were appropriate at each annual review. The student's goals addressed his actual areas of need as identified through data. Goals in occupational therapy, behavior, executive functioning, attention, and certain reading sub-skills were not required because the evidence showed those areas were either not deficient or were adequately addressed through accommodations. By the 2020 IEP, the student was reading at grade level (1000L Lexile), earning As, and reading goals were appropriately removed.
Independent assessors' recommendations were considered but not required to be adopted. The ALJ cited Westmoreland for the principle that an IEP team must consider but need not follow an independent expert's recommendations, as long as the IEP otherwise offers a FAPE.
Implementation issues were not before the ALJ. The parent's closing brief raised IEP implementation concerns, but those were not pleaded in the amended complaint and were therefore not considered.

What Was Ordered

All relief sought by the student and parent was denied.
No compensatory education was awarded.
No reimbursement for private tutoring or independent assessments was ordered.
The district was found to have offered a FAPE under all three challenged IEPs.

Why This Matters for Parents

Document your concerns in writing at every IEP meeting. The ALJ repeatedly noted that no parent or team member raised concerns about OT, speech-language, or executive functioning at the annual meetings. When services were later requested, the district could point to the absence of contemporaneous concern. If you believe your child needs a service, say so at the meeting and make sure it is recorded in the IEP notes — don't assume the team sees what you see.
Grades and goal progress are powerful evidence — in both directions. The district successfully defended all three IEPs largely because the student was meeting his goals and earning passing or strong grades. If your child appears to be doing well on paper but you believe something is wrong, gather supplemental evidence (such as how much parent help or private tutoring is required) and raise it explicitly. The ALJ noted that the student's "proficient" writing grades came "with assistance from his tutor" — but that fact was not developed into a winning legal argument.
Independent assessments must be backed up with expert testimony. The parent obtained independent assessments in OT and psychoeducational functioning. However, the OT assessor's credibility was found to be lower than the district assessor's, and no speech-language expert testified to contradict the district SLP. If you obtain an independent educational evaluation (IEE), make sure your expert is prepared to testify clearly and withstand cross-examination at hearing.
You must plead every issue before the hearing — closing briefs cannot add new claims. The parent tried to raise IEP implementation failures in the closing brief, but those issues had not been included in the amended complaint. The ALJ refused to consider them. Before you file or amend a due process complaint, make sure every concern you want decided is specifically written into the complaint itself.
The "snapshot rule" limits what districts can be held responsible for not knowing. Courts and ALJs evaluate IEPs based on what the team knew at the time the IEP was written — not what was learned later. If you have concerns that your child needs additional services, share that information with the district as early as possible and request assessments promptly, rather than waiting until after an IEP is already in place. Delays in sharing information can limit the remedies available to you.