District Wins on FAPE Claims But Must Pay for Private Evaluator After Ignoring Parent Letter

What Happened

Student was a 13-year-old with Autism and Specific Learning Disability who attended fifth and sixth grade at a Stanislaus Union School District elementary school. Student struggled with reading, writing, executive functioning, pragmatic language, and behavior — but also showed meaningful progress over time, earning passing and above-average grades and meeting several ambitious IEP goals. Parents were concerned that the district was not adequately addressing Student's needs, particularly around what they believed was an unaddressed dyslexia diagnosis, insufficient behavior supports, and a failure to provide an in-person aide during COVID-19 distance learning. Parents hired a private neuropsychologist, Dr. Perlman, who evaluated Student and concluded he had dyslexia that the district had overlooked.

After the district held Student's 2021 annual IEP meeting — which Parents, their attorney, and Dr. Perlman attended — Parents signed the IEP but sent a detailed five-page letter listing their concerns, questions, and specific requests for changes. They asked for dyslexia-specific instruction, a new functional behavior assessment, a different type of behavior aide, amended goals, and a change to Student's eligibility category. The district never responded to the letter. Parents subsequently removed Student from the district and enrolled him in a charter school. They then filed for due process, raising claims spanning two school years.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor on nearly every substantive claim. The district's IEPs for both the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years were found to be appropriate. The goals were measurable, ambitious, and based on current assessments. Services for academics, behavior, executive functioning, and pragmatic language were all deemed adequate. Student had in fact met several challenging goals, including a reading fluency goal that required two full years of progress in one year.

On the fine motor claims, the ALJ found no credible evidence that Student had a fine motor deficit requiring assessment or services — Student's handwriting difficulties were traced to his writing disorder under Specific Learning Disability, which was already being addressed. No one — not Parents, teachers, or even Dr. Perlman — had requested a fine motor assessment during either school year.

On distance learning, the ALJ rejected the argument that the district should have sent an aide to Student's home during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Governor's stay-at-home orders lawfully restricted in-person instruction, and the district provided Student's services remotely, including a virtual aide. Student was actively engaged during distance learning and was making progress on his goals.

On dyslexia methodology, the ALJ found the district was providing evidence-based, structured literacy instruction through Student's Specific Learning Disability eligibility — legally sufficient under a recent Ninth Circuit ruling — even though it did not label the program as "dyslexia instruction."

However, the ALJ found one procedural violation: the district failed to respond to Parents' April 18, 2021 consent-with-exceptions letter. When Parents formally requested changes — including amended goals, a new assessment, different services, and a change in eligibility category — the district was required by law to send a written notice either agreeing to those changes or explaining in writing why it was refusing them. It did neither. The ALJ found this failure significantly impeded Parents' ability to participate in decision-making about their child's education and therefore constituted a denial of FAPE.

What Was Ordered

1. Stanislaus Union School District must reimburse Parents $7,087.50 for Dr. Perlman's December 2020 neuropsychological evaluation and his participation in the IEP team meeting, within 30 calendar days of the decision.
2. Within 60 calendar days, the district must provide two hours of training for its special education administrators and staff on the legal requirements for prior written notice.
3. All other requests for relief — including reimbursement for other private assessments obtained in preparation for hearing — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Put your requests in writing, and expect a written response. When Parents submitted a formal letter requesting IEP changes, the law required the district to respond in writing — either agreeing or explaining its refusal. Districts cannot simply ignore written requests from parents. If you send a consent-with-exceptions letter or any letter requesting changes to your child's IEP, the district owes you a written prior written notice in response.

2. A district does not have to use the word "dyslexia" as long as it is addressing the underlying reading deficits. The ALJ found the district's instruction for Student's reading and writing disorder was legally adequate even without a formal "dyslexia" label or program, consistent with a 2022 Ninth Circuit ruling. Parents seeking dyslexia-specific services should know that courts may accept a district's Specific Learning Disability programming as sufficient — though the district should be able to explain how it meets dyslexia-related needs.

3. Progress matters. The ALJ repeatedly cited Student's actual academic gains — met goals, improved grades, measurable growth — as evidence that the IEPs were working. Keeping records of your child's progress reports, grades, and goal data can either support or challenge a district's claim that its program is appropriate.

4. The district's failure to communicate cost it money and required staff training. Even though the district won on almost every substantive issue, its silence in response to a parent letter led to a $7,000+ reimbursement order and mandatory staff training. Procedural compliance is not optional — and when districts fall short, there are real consequences.