Districts Prevail on COVID Distance Learning and Autism IEP Challenges

What Happened

Student is a child with autism who attended a specialized preschool autism classroom. During the 2020-2021 school year, while enrolled in Stockton Unified, Student participated in distance learning due to California's COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. In February 2021, Student also began attending an in-person cohort program — a small group of five students meeting twice a week — that Stockton had created under state public health guidelines. The family moved to Manteca in April 2021, and Student transferred to Manteca Unified, eventually attending a special day autism classroom. Parents filed a due process complaint in February 2023, raising eleven issues against both districts spanning roughly two years of Student's education.

Against Stockton, Parents argued that Student should have received full in-person services despite the Governor's pandemic orders, that Stockton failed to provide required accommodations during distance learning, and that Stockton should have conducted a new assessment to evaluate Student's needs in a remote learning environment. Against Manteca, Parents challenged the appropriateness of goals, services, and supports in two separate IEPs — dated November 23, 2021, and November 15, 2022 — arguing that Student needed different fine motor, speech-language, and social-emotional goals, more speech therapy, a one-to-one aide, occupational therapy, extended school year services, and parent training in autism and speech-language.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of both districts on every issue. Here is what the ALJ found on the major claims:

COVID Distance Learning (Stockton): The ALJ found that California's Governor lawfully ordered school closures and distance learning, and that these orders affected all students — disabled and non-disabled alike. Under established federal law, the IDEA does not give parents of disabled students the right to override statewide administrative decisions about school management. Student's December 2020 IEP was written during the pandemic and expressly offered distance learning and cohort instruction, so Stockton did exactly what the IEP promised. Student actively participated in videoconference classes, made meaningful progress on all goals, and was recommended for advancement to a less structured classroom before the family moved. No reassessment was required because Student was making progress and neither Parents nor any Stockton staff had requested one.

IEP Goals (Manteca, 2021 and 2022): The ALJ found that Manteca's fine motor, speech-language pragmatics, and social-emotional goals in both IEPs were measurable, appropriately ambitious, and directly tied to Student's present levels of performance. Goals were updated and advanced between IEPs to reflect Student's growth rather than simply repeated.

Services and Supports (Manteca): The ALJ found that Manteca's offers of specialized academic instruction in an autism special day class — with a low student-to-adult ratio and embedded communication and behavioral supports — were sufficient to provide educational benefit. The speech-language services offered (25-minute group sessions, six times per month) were deemed appropriate by Student's speech-language pathologist, who observed meaningful progress. Every professional on the IEP team — including the school psychologist, speech pathologist, occupational therapist, and general education teacher — testified that a one-to-one aide was unnecessary and could even harm Student's development of independence. Occupational therapy was appropriately added later via an IEP amendment once an assessment was completed.

ESY and Parent Training: Student showed no documented pattern of regression over school breaks, so extended school year was not required. Parent training was also not required because there was no evidence it was necessary for Student to benefit from his education, and Parents had not requested it.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied on all eleven issues. Both Stockton Unified and Manteca Unified prevailed entirely.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. COVID-era distance learning claims face an uphill battle. Courts and hearing officers have consistently held that Governor Newsom's pandemic school closure orders were lawful and that districts were not required to override them to provide in-person services. If your child's IEP was written during the pandemic and included distance learning, the district likely complied with it even if in-person services were not delivered.

2. Failing to meet a goal does not automatically mean the IEP was wrong. The ALJ emphasized that a student can receive educational benefit even if some goals are not fully met, as long as meaningful progress is being made. If your child is making real progress — even slow progress — that typically satisfies the legal standard for a FAPE.

3. Requesting a one-to-one aide requires more than behavioral concerns — you need evidence it is necessary. Parents and districts disagreed here about whether Student needed a dedicated aide. The ALJ credited the school team's unanimous opinion that classroom supports were sufficient. If you believe your child needs a one-to-one aide, gather documentation showing that existing classroom staff and supports are not adequately addressing your child's needs.

4. Request assessments in writing if you believe your child needs them. In this case, Parents were concerned about Student's skills but never formally requested a reassessment during the Stockton distance learning period. A written assessment request creates a legal obligation for the district to respond. If you have concerns, put them in writing — don't assume the district will initiate an assessment on its own.