District Wins: COVID Distance Learning Was Adequate for Student With Learning Disability

A parent challenged San Benito High School District's distance learning program during the 2020-2021 school year, arguing it denied her 14-year-old daughter a FAPE by failing to provide in-person instruction, adequate accommodations, sufficient instructional time, appropriate goals, and a one-to-one aide. ALJ Sabrina Kong ruled entirely in the district's favor, finding that the student accessed her education successfully, earned mostly As and Bs, and that the district's combination of home online learning and an on-campus special education cohort program met her needs under her IEP.

What Happened

A 14-year-old ninth grader at San Benito High School had a specific learning disability affecting reading decoding and fluency, math calculation, and written language. Her operative IEP — carried over from middle school — provided 810 minutes per week of group specialized academic instruction, plus accommodations including extended time, text-to-speech software, and note-taking assistance. When the 2020-2021 school year began during the COVID-19 pandemic, San Benito launched fully remote instruction. The student initially learned from home online, and starting September 28, 2020, was invited to join an on-campus special education cohort program four days a week with two in-person instructional aides, while continuing remote learning on Wednesdays and at home in the afternoons.

The parent filed for due process in March 2021, arguing that the district failed to provide adequate in-person instruction, did not evaluate or offer all necessary distance-learning accommodations, provided only one hour per day of real instruction, wrote inadequate IEP goals, and refused to assign a one-to-one aide. The ALJ disagreed on every issue. The student had earned mostly As and Bs across all her classes, her teachers consistently described her as engaged and self-advocating, and the early technology difficulties she experienced were resolved within weeks. The district was found to have delivered a FAPE throughout the period in question.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor on all five issues:

Distance learning did not require in-person teachers. The student's IEP did not specify that teachers must be physically present. The district's combination of home online learning and an on-campus cohort with in-person aides did not materially deviate from the IEP. All teachers were credentialed, supervised the student daily, and reported she participated actively and progressed academically.
No evaluation for distance-learning accommodations was required. The student showed no signs of struggling in a way that would trigger a reassessment. The district was already aware of her accommodation needs, implemented all applicable accommodations from her existing IEP (extended time, text-to-speech software, open notes, graphic organizers, and more), and the student accessed her curriculum successfully.
The district provided far more than one hour of daily instruction. The student received six hours of combined synchronous and asynchronous learning per day — consistent with CDE COVID-era guidance allowing curriculum-based self-study and scaffolded activities to count toward instructional time. The claim that only "active lecture time" counts had no legal or factual support.
IEP goals in reading, writing, and math were appropriate. Both the English and pre-algebra teachers measured progress on the three goals and opined they were appropriate. The parent offered no expert testimony or counter-evidence challenging the goals.
A one-to-one aide was not required. The student did not have maladaptive behaviors or severe enough needs to qualify under the district's criteria. All teachers testified she could access the curriculum without one, and the case manager noted a one-to-one aide could actually hinder her independence and social-emotional development in high school.

What Was Ordered

All of the student's requests for relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Academic grades alone can be used against you. The ALJ repeatedly pointed to the student's As and Bs as proof she was receiving educational benefit. If your child is passing classes during distance learning but you believe they are not truly learning, document that gap carefully — through private evaluations, teacher observations, or standardized testing — before filing.
Parental preference is not enough. The ALJ dismissed the parent's testimony on every issue because she had not observed the online classroom firsthand and lacked professional expertise. If you believe your child needs more services, get expert support — an independent educational evaluator, educational consultant, or advocate who can provide evidence-based opinions.
Your child's IEP may not require in-person services even if it was written before COVID. The ALJ found that because the IEP didn't explicitly require teachers to be physically present, the district wasn't obligated to provide that. If in-person instruction is critical for your child, push to have that requirement written explicitly into the IEP.
Accommodations your child doesn't use will not count against the district. The student had a text-to-speech accommodation but never used it. The ALJ found this was the student's choice, not a district failure. Make sure your child actually knows how to use each accommodation and is using it — and document any barriers to access.
COVID-era distance learning gave districts significant flexibility. Federal and state guidance during the pandemic allowed districts to count asynchronous self-study, video assignments, and scaffolded activities as instructional time. Courts and ALJs have generally deferred to this flexibility. If you believe your child lost significant ground during remote learning, the stronger argument is often for compensatory education after the fact, supported by data showing regression.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor on all five issues:

Distance learning did not require in-person teachers. The student's IEP did not specify that teachers must be physically present. The district's combination of home online learning and an on-campus cohort with in-person aides did not materially deviate from the IEP. All teachers were credentialed, supervised the student daily, and reported she participated actively and progressed academically.
No evaluation for distance-learning accommodations was required. The student showed no signs of struggling in a way that would trigger a reassessment. The district was already aware of her accommodation needs, implemented all applicable accommodations from her existing IEP (extended time, text-to-speech software, open notes, graphic organizers, and more), and the student accessed her curriculum successfully.
The district provided far more than one hour of daily instruction. The student received six hours of combined synchronous and asynchronous learning per day — consistent with CDE COVID-era guidance allowing curriculum-based self-study and scaffolded activities to count toward instructional time. The claim that only "active lecture time" counts had no legal or factual support.
IEP goals in reading, writing, and math were appropriate. Both the English and pre-algebra teachers measured progress on the three goals and opined they were appropriate. The parent offered no expert testimony or counter-evidence challenging the goals.
A one-to-one aide was not required. The student did not have maladaptive behaviors or severe enough needs to qualify under the district's criteria. All teachers testified she could access the curriculum without one, and the case manager noted a one-to-one aide could actually hinder her independence and social-emotional development in high school.

What Was Ordered

All of the student's requests for relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Academic grades alone can be used against you. The ALJ repeatedly pointed to the student's As and Bs as proof she was receiving educational benefit. If your child is passing classes during distance learning but you believe they are not truly learning, document that gap carefully — through private evaluations, teacher observations, or standardized testing — before filing.
Parental preference is not enough. The ALJ dismissed the parent's testimony on every issue because she had not observed the online classroom firsthand and lacked professional expertise. If you believe your child needs more services, get expert support — an independent educational evaluator, educational consultant, or advocate who can provide evidence-based opinions.
Your child's IEP may not require in-person services even if it was written before COVID. The ALJ found that because the IEP didn't explicitly require teachers to be physically present, the district wasn't obligated to provide that. If in-person instruction is critical for your child, push to have that requirement written explicitly into the IEP.
Accommodations your child doesn't use will not count against the district. The student had a text-to-speech accommodation but never used it. The ALJ found this was the student's choice, not a district failure. Make sure your child actually knows how to use each accommodation and is using it — and document any barriers to access.
COVID-era distance learning gave districts significant flexibility. Federal and state guidance during the pandemic allowed districts to count asynchronous self-study, video assignments, and scaffolded activities as instructional time. Courts and ALJs have generally deferred to this flexibility. If you believe your child lost significant ground during remote learning, the stronger argument is often for compensatory education after the fact, supported by data showing regression.