District Not Required to Repeat 2022 ESY Offer After Parents Chose Private Placement

A parent argued that Los Alamitos Unified School District was required to fund extended school year (ESY) services at a private school in summer 2023, based on an IEP amendment the district had offered in June 2022. The ALJ ruled against the parent, finding that once the family privately placed Student at the nonpublic school for the full 2022-2023 school year, the district's obligation under that prior IEP ended. The district prevailed on the sole issue decided.

What Happened

Student was a 12-year-old sixth grader eligible for special education under specific learning disability and speech or language impairment. Student had been privately placed by the family at The Prentice School, a nonpublic school, since fourth grade. In the spring of 2022, Los Alamitos held IEP meetings and made an offer that Parents did not fully accept. After Parents sent a 10-day notice of their intent to keep Student at Prentice, the district amended its IEP offer on June 8, 2022, to include ESY services at Prentice for the summer of 2022. Parents consented only to the ESY portion of that offer, and Student attended Prentice for ESY 2022.

After ESY 2022 ended, Student continued at Prentice as a privately placed student for the entire 2022-2023 school year — the district did not fund this placement. When Parents requested an IEP for the 2023-2024 school year, Los Alamitos made a new offer in May 2023, this time offering district-provided ESY rather than the private school ESY it had offered the prior year. Parents did not consent to the May 2023 IEP. Their argument: the June 8, 2022, IEP amendment — which they had agreed to — was the last agreed-upon IEP, and the district was legally required to keep implementing it, including the ESY at Prentice, until a new agreement was reached or a hearing officer said otherwise.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ rejected the parent's argument and ruled in favor of the district. The central legal issue was whether a prior IEP offer that a parent partially consented to must be re-implemented in future years when the parent does not accept a new offer. The ALJ found the answer is no — at least when the family has chosen to privately place their child in the meantime.

The key reasoning: when Parents did not re-enroll Student in a Los Alamitos public school after ESY 2022 and instead continued Student's private placement at Prentice, they effectively ended Student's connection to the June 8, 2022, IEP offer. Under federal law, a child who is unilaterally placed in private school by their parents does not have an individual right to receive the same services they would get if enrolled in public school. The district's only obligation once Parents asked for a new IEP was to make a new offer — which it did in May 2023. The ALJ noted that Student did not challenge whether the May 2023 IEP was appropriate, only whether the district had to keep implementing the 2022 ESY offer. Because that question was answered in the district's favor, no findings were made about the quality of the May 2023 IEP.

The ALJ also rejected the argument that the district should be "equitably estopped" — meaning legally prevented — from denying it owed ESY services, just because it had made the 2022 offer knowing the family would likely stay at Prentice. This argument did not succeed.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied.
Los Alamitos was found not to have denied Student a FAPE by failing to implement the June 8, 2022 ESY offer in summer 2023.
No compensatory services, reimbursement, or other remedies were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

A prior IEP offer does not automatically carry over year to year when your child is privately placed. Once you choose to keep your child in a private school without district funding, the district's obligations under any prior IEP end. You are entitled to a new offer, not a continuation of the old one.
Partial consent to an IEP has limits. Agreeing to one piece of an IEP offer (like ESY) while rejecting the rest does not lock the district into repeating that piece indefinitely. The consent applies to the specific term covered — here, summer 2022 — not to future school years.
If you want to challenge a new IEP offer, you must do so directly. In this case, Parents did not challenge whether the May 2023 IEP was appropriate on its own terms. Because they only argued the district had to implement the old offer, the ALJ made no findings about whether the new offer was good or bad. If you believe a new IEP is inadequate, file a complaint about that IEP specifically.
Private placement changes your legal footing significantly. Parents who unilaterally place their child in a private school have fewer automatic rights under IDEA than parents whose children are enrolled in public school. Understanding this distinction before making a placement decision — ideally with the help of a special education advocate or attorney — can prevent unexpected gaps in service.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied.
Los Alamitos was found not to have denied Student a FAPE by failing to implement the June 8, 2022 ESY offer in summer 2023.
No compensatory services, reimbursement, or other remedies were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

A prior IEP offer does not automatically carry over year to year when your child is privately placed. Once you choose to keep your child in a private school without district funding, the district's obligations under any prior IEP end. You are entitled to a new offer, not a continuation of the old one.
Partial consent to an IEP has limits. Agreeing to one piece of an IEP offer (like ESY) while rejecting the rest does not lock the district into repeating that piece indefinitely. The consent applies to the specific term covered — here, summer 2022 — not to future school years.
If you want to challenge a new IEP offer, you must do so directly. In this case, Parents did not challenge whether the May 2023 IEP was appropriate on its own terms. Because they only argued the district had to implement the old offer, the ALJ made no findings about whether the new offer was good or bad. If you believe a new IEP is inadequate, file a complaint about that IEP specifically.
Private placement changes your legal footing significantly. Parents who unilaterally place their child in a private school have fewer automatic rights under IDEA than parents whose children are enrolled in public school. Understanding this distinction before making a placement decision — ideally with the help of a special education advocate or attorney — can prevent unexpected gaps in service.