COVID Distance Learning Challenges Mostly Fail — District Wins Except for 3-Week Shutdown Gap

A parent filed a due process complaint against Pleasant Valley School District arguing that COVID-19 distance learning denied their six-year-old son with Other Health Impairment (ADHD-related behaviors) a FAPE across multiple school years. The ALJ found that the district largely succeeded in delivering services through distance learning but did find a FAPE denial during the initial three-week school shutdown in March 2020, when no services were provided at all. The district was ordered to provide 56 hours of compensatory academic tutoring and 2 hours of compensatory occupational therapy.

What Happened

Student was a six-year-old boy eligible for special education under the category of Other Health Impairment, reflecting ADHD-type behaviors including significant inattention, hyperactivity, physical aggression, and verbal aggression. His IEP provided for placement in a special day class for the majority of the school day, along with 224 minutes daily of specialized academic instruction, 40 minutes per week of occupational therapy, and later, counseling services. When California schools shut down in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Pleasant Valley provided no services at all for approximately three weeks (March 16 through April 2, 2020). Starting April 3, 2020, the district launched a distance learning program using Zoom and asynchronous materials, which continued into the 2020–2021 school year with periodic returns to in-person learning.

The parent filed a due process complaint in April 2021 raising six clusters of issues: failure to provide in-person services during distance learning, failure to assess Student for distance learning, alleged deficiencies in the August 2020 IEP (program, goals, and lack of a one-to-one aide), and failure to address regression caused by distance learning. The hearing officer found in the district's favor on nearly every issue, with one narrow exception — the initial three-week blackout period where no services of any kind were delivered.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled largely in favor of the district, with one partial finding for the student. Here is a breakdown:

The three-week shutdown was a FAPE violation. From March 16 to April 2, 2020, Pleasant Valley provided Student with no specialized academic instruction or occupational therapy. Even though the school closure was caused by the pandemic, the IDEA contains no exception permitting school districts to simply stop providing services. The district could have offered alternative delivery methods or compensatory services but did not. This narrow period was found to be a material failure to implement the IEP.
Distance learning from April 2020 onward was adequate. Once the district launched its distance learning program on April 3, 2020, the special education teacher worked diligently to approximate IEP services through synchronous Zoom classes and asynchronous materials delivered to students' homes. The ALJ found this met the "material implementation" standard and did not constitute a FAPE denial — even though services were not delivered in person.
No duty to separately evaluate Student for distance learning. The parent argued the district should have assessed Student specifically for his ability to access education through a distance learning format. The ALJ rejected this, finding no evidence that the parent or teachers requested such an assessment or that the district had reason to believe existing evaluations were insufficient.
The August 2020 IEP offered appropriate goals. The ALJ reviewed all seven goals across reading, math, writing, motor skills, and social-emotional areas and found each was measurable, tied to Student's present levels of performance, and reasonably calculated to allow progress. The parent's preference for different or more challenging goals was not sufficient to show the goals were inappropriate.
No one-to-one aide was required. The parent argued Student could not access his education without a dedicated one-to-one aide. The ALJ found the district's staffing of a special education teacher plus two paraeducators in the classroom was adequate. No witness testified that Student required his own individual aide, and district staff testified he could engage with redirection and prompting from available staff.
No compensable regression was proven. By the time the complaint was filed in April 2021, Student's father, teacher, behaviorist, and occupational therapist all agreed Student was making substantial progress and doing well. The parent offered no expert testimony or other evidence of measurable regression. The ALJ found the district appropriately responded to social-emotional concerns by adding counseling services at the August 2020 IEP.

What Was Ordered

Pleasant Valley must make available 56 hours of individual specialized academic instruction/tutoring provided by a resource teacher or certificated special education staff member employed by the district.
Pleasant Valley must make available 2 hours of compensatory occupational therapy provided by a licensed occupational therapist employed by the district.
All compensatory services must be available to Student until June 30, 2023.
All other requests for relief were denied, including claims related to in-person services, distance learning accommodations, IEP goals, one-to-one aide, and regression.

Why This Matters for Parents

Document service gaps immediately — even during emergencies. The only relief the student received in this case was for the three weeks when no services were delivered at all. If your district stops services during a closure or emergency, put your concerns in writing right away. Ask what compensatory services will be offered to make up the gap.
Distance learning can satisfy the FAPE requirement if services are closely approximated. Courts and ALJs have generally allowed districts to use Zoom and asynchronous materials in place of in-person services during the pandemic, as long as the amount and type of instruction is reasonably close to what the IEP requires. Simply wanting in-person services is not enough — parents must show the distance model materially failed to deliver the IEP.
If you believe your child cannot access distance learning, get an expert evaluation and document it. The parent in this case argued that their son needed in-person services to benefit educationally, but offered no expert testimony or evaluation to support that claim. If your child has unique needs that make a particular delivery model ineffective, document that with professional assessments and ask the IEP team to address it.
Claims about IEP goals require concrete evidence, not just parental preference. To win on an IEP goals challenge, you generally need to show the goals were unmeasurable, not tied to the child's actual skill levels, or otherwise objectively deficient. Disagreeing with the district's approach or wanting more ambitious goals, without expert support, is typically not enough.
Compensatory education awards may be far smaller than the total services missed. The ALJ calculated the award based only on the three-week gap — not the entire period of distance learning. Hour-for-hour compensation is not legally required, and awards are tailored to what is "appropriate" given the circumstances. Parents should be prepared for remedies to be narrower than the full scope of claimed denials.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled largely in favor of the district, with one partial finding for the student. Here is a breakdown:

The three-week shutdown was a FAPE violation. From March 16 to April 2, 2020, Pleasant Valley provided Student with no specialized academic instruction or occupational therapy. Even though the school closure was caused by the pandemic, the IDEA contains no exception permitting school districts to simply stop providing services. The district could have offered alternative delivery methods or compensatory services but did not. This narrow period was found to be a material failure to implement the IEP.
Distance learning from April 2020 onward was adequate. Once the district launched its distance learning program on April 3, 2020, the special education teacher worked diligently to approximate IEP services through synchronous Zoom classes and asynchronous materials delivered to students' homes. The ALJ found this met the "material implementation" standard and did not constitute a FAPE denial — even though services were not delivered in person.
No duty to separately evaluate Student for distance learning. The parent argued the district should have assessed Student specifically for his ability to access education through a distance learning format. The ALJ rejected this, finding no evidence that the parent or teachers requested such an assessment or that the district had reason to believe existing evaluations were insufficient.
The August 2020 IEP offered appropriate goals. The ALJ reviewed all seven goals across reading, math, writing, motor skills, and social-emotional areas and found each was measurable, tied to Student's present levels of performance, and reasonably calculated to allow progress. The parent's preference for different or more challenging goals was not sufficient to show the goals were inappropriate.
No one-to-one aide was required. The parent argued Student could not access his education without a dedicated one-to-one aide. The ALJ found the district's staffing of a special education teacher plus two paraeducators in the classroom was adequate. No witness testified that Student required his own individual aide, and district staff testified he could engage with redirection and prompting from available staff.
No compensable regression was proven. By the time the complaint was filed in April 2021, Student's father, teacher, behaviorist, and occupational therapist all agreed Student was making substantial progress and doing well. The parent offered no expert testimony or other evidence of measurable regression. The ALJ found the district appropriately responded to social-emotional concerns by adding counseling services at the August 2020 IEP.

What Was Ordered

Pleasant Valley must make available 56 hours of individual specialized academic instruction/tutoring provided by a resource teacher or certificated special education staff member employed by the district.
Pleasant Valley must make available 2 hours of compensatory occupational therapy provided by a licensed occupational therapist employed by the district.
All compensatory services must be available to Student until June 30, 2023.
All other requests for relief were denied, including claims related to in-person services, distance learning accommodations, IEP goals, one-to-one aide, and regression.

Why This Matters for Parents

Document service gaps immediately — even during emergencies. The only relief the student received in this case was for the three weeks when no services were delivered at all. If your district stops services during a closure or emergency, put your concerns in writing right away. Ask what compensatory services will be offered to make up the gap.
Distance learning can satisfy the FAPE requirement if services are closely approximated. Courts and ALJs have generally allowed districts to use Zoom and asynchronous materials in place of in-person services during the pandemic, as long as the amount and type of instruction is reasonably close to what the IEP requires. Simply wanting in-person services is not enough — parents must show the distance model materially failed to deliver the IEP.
If you believe your child cannot access distance learning, get an expert evaluation and document it. The parent in this case argued that their son needed in-person services to benefit educationally, but offered no expert testimony or evaluation to support that claim. If your child has unique needs that make a particular delivery model ineffective, document that with professional assessments and ask the IEP team to address it.
Claims about IEP goals require concrete evidence, not just parental preference. To win on an IEP goals challenge, you generally need to show the goals were unmeasurable, not tied to the child's actual skill levels, or otherwise objectively deficient. Disagreeing with the district's approach or wanting more ambitious goals, without expert support, is typically not enough.
Compensatory education awards may be far smaller than the total services missed. The ALJ calculated the award based only on the three-week gap — not the entire period of distance learning. Hour-for-hour compensation is not legally required, and awards are tailored to what is "appropriate" given the circumstances. Parents should be prepared for remedies to be narrower than the full scope of claimed denials.