District Failed to Implement Transfer Student's IEP or Hold Timely IEP Meeting, Then COVID Worsened the Harm

A 16-year-old student with a specific learning disability transferred from Etiwanda middle school to Chaffey's Rancho Cucamonga High School for ninth grade with an amended IEP requiring specialized academic instruction in a small, separate classroom. Chaffey instead placed her in general education classes for all core subjects, never held a timely IEP meeting to discuss the discrepancy with her parent, and then failed to provide in-person specialized instruction during COVID-19 closures through the first semester of tenth grade. The ALJ found Chaffey denied the student a FAPE on multiple grounds and ordered 112 hours of compensatory one-on-one specialized academic instruction plus mandatory staff training on transfer student procedures.

What Happened

A 16-year-old student with a specific learning disability attended middle school in the Etiwanda School District. After a dispute with Etiwanda, her parent signed a June 2019 settlement agreement that effectively amended the student's November 2018 IEP: it required 750 minutes per week of specialized academic instruction in a separate, highly structured small classroom with a small student-to-staff ratio, and limited the student's time in general education to 50 percent of the school day. When the student transferred to Chaffey's Rancho Cucamonga High School for ninth grade in August 2019, Chaffey knew about the amended IEP before she arrived — but placed her in six periods of general education core classes anyway, with only an instructional assistant (not a credentialed special education teacher) supporting most of those classes. Chaffey never explained this change to the parent or held an IEP team meeting to discuss it.

When schools closed for COVID-19 in March 2020, Chaffey shifted to distance learning for all students but provided no in-person specialized academic instruction for the remainder of ninth grade, through extended school year (which Chaffey canceled entirely for all students in 2020), and into the first semester of tenth grade. The student struggled significantly with distance learning — her specific learning disability made it hard to stay on task without direct adult intervention — and she failed to access most online assignments after the school closure. Parent filed a due process complaint in December 2020. The ALJ found that Chaffey denied the student a FAPE by materially failing to implement her IEP from August 2019 onward, by failing to timely convene an IEP meeting, and by not delivering in-person specialized instruction during the pandemic period. The district prevailed only on the narrower claims about the June 2020 IEP meeting itself.

What the District Did Wrong

Material failure to implement the amended IEP (Issue 2 — Student prevailed). From August 5, 2019 through March 13, 2020, Chaffey placed the student in four general education core classes — English, Spanish, Biology, and math — instead of the small, separate specialized academic instruction setting required by her IEP. Only her math class had a co-teaching credentialed special education teacher; the other three had only instructional assistants. Chaffey never documented in an IEP amendment how many minutes of specialized instruction the student received or who was delivering it. This was found to be a "material" failure because the services fell significantly short of what the IEP required, even though the student earned passing grades.
Failure to hold a timely IEP meeting (Issue 3 — Student prevailed). Chaffey knew before school started that it could not implement the amended IEP as written. Despite this, it did not propose an IEP meeting until September 25, 2019 — more than six weeks into the school year — and never escalated appropriately when the parent and her advocate failed to respond. Under California law and Ninth Circuit precedent (I.R. v. Los Angeles Unified), when a parent does not cooperate with scheduling, the district must hold the meeting anyway under Education Code § 56341.5(h), develop a proposed IEP, and then file for due process if the parent won't consent. Chaffey did none of these things. The parent had no way of knowing Chaffey was not implementing the amended IEP because no one told her, and this significantly impeded her ability to participate in her child's education.
Failure to provide in-person specialized instruction during COVID-19 closures (Issue 5 — Student prevailed). From March 16, 2020 through December 1, 2020 — covering the remainder of ninth grade, a canceled extended school year, and the first semester of tenth grade — Chaffey provided no in-person specialized academic instruction. The student's disability made distance learning particularly ineffective for her: she was easily distracted, struggled to stay on task without adult support, and disengaged from nearly all virtual assignments after the school closure. Chaffey's failure to deliver even modified in-person services (permitted under CDE COVID guidance) was a material IEP implementation failure across 28 weeks of instruction.
Cancellation of extended school year (ESY). The student's IEP called for ESY services at 960 minutes per week. Chaffey canceled ESY for all students in 2020, providing no services and no substitute. This contributed to the compensatory education award.
What the district did NOT do wrong (Issues 4A–4E — District prevailed). The ALJ found that Chaffey adequately reviewed the student's file before the June 26, 2020 IEP meeting, did not improperly deny assessments (the parent had refused to sign an assessment plan Chaffey offered), provided the parent enough information at that meeting to participate meaningfully, accurately documented the meeting, and appropriately responded to the parent's requests at that meeting. These five sub-issues were all decided in Chaffey's favor.

What Was Ordered

Staff training (remedy for Issue 3). Chaffey must provide two hours of training to all administrative personnel — including special education directors, case advisors, and case carriers — responsible for students transitioning from elementary districts within the SELPA to Rancho Cucamonga. The training must be conducted by outside qualified professionals (not employed by SELPA or Chaffey) and must cover: (a) how to obtain and share transfer students' records, including settlement agreements; (b) how to involve parents when a transferring student's IEP cannot be implemented as written; and (c) the district's legal obligation under I.R. to hold an IEP meeting without the parent if necessary and to file for due process if the parent won't consent to a proposed IEP.
112 hours of compensatory one-on-one specialized academic instruction (remedy for Issues 2 and 5). Chaffey must fund 112 hours of individualized, in-person specialized academic instruction delivered by an appropriately credentialed special education teacher (contracted individually or through a certified nonpublic agency). This is calculated as one hour per week per core class (four classes) across the 28 weeks of missed in-person specialized instruction from March 16, 2020 through December 1, 2020. The hours are available from the date of the decision through the last school day of Chaffey's 2022–2023 school year, at times mutually agreed upon by Chaffey and the parent or student. Unused hours are forfeited after that date.
All other relief denied. The ALJ denied the student's requests for hundreds of hours of tutoring, behavioral/psychological counseling, speech-language services and assessment, Lindamood-Bell services, reimbursement for unspecified costs, and a $150,000 compensatory fund. The student failed to present credible expert evidence linking those remedies to actual educational loss.

Why This Matters for Parents

A settlement agreement with your old district is only as good as what your new district knows about it. In this case, Etiwanda never transferred the settlement agreement to Chaffey, and Chaffey's staff implemented the wrong program as a result. Before your child transitions to a new school — especially at the middle-to-high school level — confirm in writing that all records, including any settlement agreements, have been received and reviewed by the new school's special education team. Ask for written confirmation before the first day of school.
If your child's new school can't implement the existing IEP, you must be told immediately — and an IEP meeting must happen right away. A district cannot simply substitute a different program without your knowledge or consent. If the new school places your child differently than the IEP requires without convening an IEP meeting and getting your input, that is a procedural violation that can rise to a denial of FAPE. You do not have to discover the discrepancy on your own — the district has an affirmative duty to tell you.
Districts must pursue due process if you repeatedly decline IEP meetings — they cannot simply wait you out. This case reinforces the I.R. rule: if a parent doesn't respond to IEP meeting invitations, the district must eventually hold the meeting anyway, develop a proposed IEP offer, and file for due process if needed. A district that does nothing and blames the parent for the delay will not be excused. As a parent, this also means you should attend IEP meetings even when you disagree — refusing to participate can complicate your child's remedy if you later file for due process.
COVID did not excuse districts from providing specialized instruction — and missed services can be compensated. This ALJ awarded compensatory hours for the period of school closures because the student's IEP required a specific number of minutes of specialized academic instruction weekly, and Chaffey provided none in person. If your child's IEP was not implemented during COVID-era closures, you may still be able to seek compensatory services for that period, especially if your child's disability made distance learning ineffective.
To win a large compensatory remedy, you need expert evidence connecting the denial to your child's actual educational loss. The student here won on the legal violations but received a modest remedy because her family did not present expert testimony or other credible evidence showing how much academic ground she lost. If you are seeking significant compensatory services, work with an educational expert who can assess your child's current skill levels, document regression or lost progress, and recommend a specific number of hours and type of service needed to restore what was lost.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Material failure to implement the amended IEP (Issue 2 — Student prevailed). From August 5, 2019 through March 13, 2020, Chaffey placed the student in four general education core classes — English, Spanish, Biology, and math — instead of the small, separate specialized academic instruction setting required by her IEP. Only her math class had a co-teaching credentialed special education teacher; the other three had only instructional assistants. Chaffey never documented in an IEP amendment how many minutes of specialized instruction the student received or who was delivering it. This was found to be a "material" failure because the services fell significantly short of what the IEP required, even though the student earned passing grades.
Failure to hold a timely IEP meeting (Issue 3 — Student prevailed). Chaffey knew before school started that it could not implement the amended IEP as written. Despite this, it did not propose an IEP meeting until September 25, 2019 — more than six weeks into the school year — and never escalated appropriately when the parent and her advocate failed to respond. Under California law and Ninth Circuit precedent (I.R. v. Los Angeles Unified), when a parent does not cooperate with scheduling, the district must hold the meeting anyway under Education Code § 56341.5(h), develop a proposed IEP, and then file for due process if the parent won't consent. Chaffey did none of these things. The parent had no way of knowing Chaffey was not implementing the amended IEP because no one told her, and this significantly impeded her ability to participate in her child's education.
Failure to provide in-person specialized instruction during COVID-19 closures (Issue 5 — Student prevailed). From March 16, 2020 through December 1, 2020 — covering the remainder of ninth grade, a canceled extended school year, and the first semester of tenth grade — Chaffey provided no in-person specialized academic instruction. The student's disability made distance learning particularly ineffective for her: she was easily distracted, struggled to stay on task without adult support, and disengaged from nearly all virtual assignments after the school closure. Chaffey's failure to deliver even modified in-person services (permitted under CDE COVID guidance) was a material IEP implementation failure across 28 weeks of instruction.
Cancellation of extended school year (ESY). The student's IEP called for ESY services at 960 minutes per week. Chaffey canceled ESY for all students in 2020, providing no services and no substitute. This contributed to the compensatory education award.
What the district did NOT do wrong (Issues 4A–4E — District prevailed). The ALJ found that Chaffey adequately reviewed the student's file before the June 26, 2020 IEP meeting, did not improperly deny assessments (the parent had refused to sign an assessment plan Chaffey offered), provided the parent enough information at that meeting to participate meaningfully, accurately documented the meeting, and appropriately responded to the parent's requests at that meeting. These five sub-issues were all decided in Chaffey's favor.

What Was Ordered

Staff training (remedy for Issue 3). Chaffey must provide two hours of training to all administrative personnel — including special education directors, case advisors, and case carriers — responsible for students transitioning from elementary districts within the SELPA to Rancho Cucamonga. The training must be conducted by outside qualified professionals (not employed by SELPA or Chaffey) and must cover: (a) how to obtain and share transfer students' records, including settlement agreements; (b) how to involve parents when a transferring student's IEP cannot be implemented as written; and (c) the district's legal obligation under I.R. to hold an IEP meeting without the parent if necessary and to file for due process if the parent won't consent to a proposed IEP.
112 hours of compensatory one-on-one specialized academic instruction (remedy for Issues 2 and 5). Chaffey must fund 112 hours of individualized, in-person specialized academic instruction delivered by an appropriately credentialed special education teacher (contracted individually or through a certified nonpublic agency). This is calculated as one hour per week per core class (four classes) across the 28 weeks of missed in-person specialized instruction from March 16, 2020 through December 1, 2020. The hours are available from the date of the decision through the last school day of Chaffey's 2022–2023 school year, at times mutually agreed upon by Chaffey and the parent or student. Unused hours are forfeited after that date.
All other relief denied. The ALJ denied the student's requests for hundreds of hours of tutoring, behavioral/psychological counseling, speech-language services and assessment, Lindamood-Bell services, reimbursement for unspecified costs, and a $150,000 compensatory fund. The student failed to present credible expert evidence linking those remedies to actual educational loss.

Why This Matters for Parents

A settlement agreement with your old district is only as good as what your new district knows about it. In this case, Etiwanda never transferred the settlement agreement to Chaffey, and Chaffey's staff implemented the wrong program as a result. Before your child transitions to a new school — especially at the middle-to-high school level — confirm in writing that all records, including any settlement agreements, have been received and reviewed by the new school's special education team. Ask for written confirmation before the first day of school.
If your child's new school can't implement the existing IEP, you must be told immediately — and an IEP meeting must happen right away. A district cannot simply substitute a different program without your knowledge or consent. If the new school places your child differently than the IEP requires without convening an IEP meeting and getting your input, that is a procedural violation that can rise to a denial of FAPE. You do not have to discover the discrepancy on your own — the district has an affirmative duty to tell you.
Districts must pursue due process if you repeatedly decline IEP meetings — they cannot simply wait you out. This case reinforces the I.R. rule: if a parent doesn't respond to IEP meeting invitations, the district must eventually hold the meeting anyway, develop a proposed IEP offer, and file for due process if needed. A district that does nothing and blames the parent for the delay will not be excused. As a parent, this also means you should attend IEP meetings even when you disagree — refusing to participate can complicate your child's remedy if you later file for due process.
COVID did not excuse districts from providing specialized instruction — and missed services can be compensated. This ALJ awarded compensatory hours for the period of school closures because the student's IEP required a specific number of minutes of specialized academic instruction weekly, and Chaffey provided none in person. If your child's IEP was not implemented during COVID-era closures, you may still be able to seek compensatory services for that period, especially if your child's disability made distance learning ineffective.
To win a large compensatory remedy, you need expert evidence connecting the denial to your child's actual educational loss. The student here won on the legal violations but received a modest remedy because her family did not present expert testimony or other credible evidence showing how much academic ground she lost. If you are seeking significant compensatory services, work with an educational expert who can assess your child's current skill levels, document regression or lost progress, and recommend a specific number of hours and type of service needed to restore what was lost.