District Wins: IEP Implementation During Summer School Was Adequate

A parent filed a due process complaint alleging William S. Hart Union High School District failed to implement their 16-year-old son's IEP during summer school following a June 2021 settlement agreement. The ALJ found the district fully implemented the IEP and denied all of the student's requests for relief.

What Happened

The student, a 16-year-old with autism and intellectual disability, attended William S. Hart Union High School District. In June 2021, the family and the district reached a settlement agreement resolving prior FAPE claims. Under that agreement, the student would be placed in the Living Skills program at Valencia High School under his September 3, 2019 IEP, which included 200 minutes per day of specialized academic instruction, 90 minutes per week of speech/language services, 60 minutes per week of occupational therapy, and a full-time instructional aide. The settlement also addressed a complication involving a temporary restraining order against the student's mother that affected drop-off and pick-up arrangements.

Shortly after summer school began on July 1, 2021, the parents grew concerned about their son's experience. They reported that he did not eat his snack one day, arrived home thirsty, and felt they were treated rudely or dismissively by school staff during drop-off. On July 23, 2021 — just over six weeks after signing the settlement — the parents filed a new due process complaint, alleging that the district had failed to implement the agreed-upon IEP during the summer session. The ALJ narrowed the complaint to only the period after the settlement agreement (June 9 through July 23, 2021), since all earlier claims had been waived.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on the sole issue heard. Key findings included:

Parents had no firsthand evidence of implementation failure. Neither parent ever observed the student at school during the summer session, and they could not provide specific evidence that any required service was missed or reduced.
The district's evidence was credible and detailed. The district's Special Education Director testified that she personally observed the student daily in his summer class and confirmed that all IEP services — occupational therapy, speech/language, and the full-time aide — were being delivered as required.
The snack and thirst complaints did not prove an IEP violation. While the ALJ acknowledged these concerns were understandable, they did not show that the program or services required by the IEP were not provided.
Communication friction was not an IEP implementation failure. The parents' complaints about rude or impersonal treatment from staff did not relate to whether the IEP itself was being implemented. The ALJ attributed any friction at drop-off to miscommunication, not intentional misconduct, and noted the complexity of the restraining order situation.
The legal standard for implementation failure was not met. Under federal law, a student must prove that any failure to implement an IEP was "material" — meaning services fell significantly short of what the IEP required. Minor or technical shortfalls do not rise to a denial of FAPE. The ALJ found the student did not meet this burden.

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.

Why This Matters for Parents

Document everything before you file. This case turned on a lack of evidence. The parents had concerns but no direct observations or records showing services were missed. Before filing a complaint, try to gather communication logs, service tracking records, or ask the school for data on services delivered.
Settlement agreements waive past claims — know what you are signing. When you sign a settlement, you typically give up the right to raise claims about everything that happened before that date. Make sure you fully understand what you are waiving before you agree.
Rude treatment is not the same as an IEP violation. How staff treats you at drop-off or in emails is a real concern, but it is legally separate from whether your child's IEP is being implemented. OAH hearings focus on services and placement, not interpersonal conduct.
You can still file after a settlement if new FAPE violations occur. This case confirms that OAH does have jurisdiction over new implementation failures that happen after a settlement is signed — the key is proving the failure with evidence.
The "material failure" standard is a high bar. Courts and ALJs require proof that services fell significantly short — not just that something felt off. If you suspect implementation problems, request service logs, teacher notes, and data tracking records in writing so you have documentation if a hearing becomes necessary.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on the sole issue heard. Key findings included:

Parents had no firsthand evidence of implementation failure. Neither parent ever observed the student at school during the summer session, and they could not provide specific evidence that any required service was missed or reduced.
The district's evidence was credible and detailed. The district's Special Education Director testified that she personally observed the student daily in his summer class and confirmed that all IEP services — occupational therapy, speech/language, and the full-time aide — were being delivered as required.
The snack and thirst complaints did not prove an IEP violation. While the ALJ acknowledged these concerns were understandable, they did not show that the program or services required by the IEP were not provided.
Communication friction was not an IEP implementation failure. The parents' complaints about rude or impersonal treatment from staff did not relate to whether the IEP itself was being implemented. The ALJ attributed any friction at drop-off to miscommunication, not intentional misconduct, and noted the complexity of the restraining order situation.
The legal standard for implementation failure was not met. Under federal law, a student must prove that any failure to implement an IEP was "material" — meaning services fell significantly short of what the IEP required. Minor or technical shortfalls do not rise to a denial of FAPE. The ALJ found the student did not meet this burden.

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.

Why This Matters for Parents

Document everything before you file. This case turned on a lack of evidence. The parents had concerns but no direct observations or records showing services were missed. Before filing a complaint, try to gather communication logs, service tracking records, or ask the school for data on services delivered.
Settlement agreements waive past claims — know what you are signing. When you sign a settlement, you typically give up the right to raise claims about everything that happened before that date. Make sure you fully understand what you are waiving before you agree.
Rude treatment is not the same as an IEP violation. How staff treats you at drop-off or in emails is a real concern, but it is legally separate from whether your child's IEP is being implemented. OAH hearings focus on services and placement, not interpersonal conduct.
You can still file after a settlement if new FAPE violations occur. This case confirms that OAH does have jurisdiction over new implementation failures that happen after a settlement is signed — the key is proving the failure with evidence.
The "material failure" standard is a high bar. Courts and ALJs require proof that services fell significantly short — not just that something felt off. If you suspect implementation problems, request service logs, teacher notes, and data tracking records in writing so you have documentation if a hearing becomes necessary.