Charter School Denied Dyslexic Student FAPE for Two Years by Failing to Use Structured Literacy

A parent filed for due process against South Sutter Charter School on behalf of an 11-year-old student with dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, and ADHD, alleging years of inadequate IEP goals and ineffective specialized academic instruction. The ALJ found the charter school denied the student a FAPE from September 2021 through 2023 by failing to convene a required IEP meeting, offering unmeasurable or inappropriate goals in reading and writing, and providing specialized instruction without any evidence-based, structured literacy methodology. The family was awarded over $16,000 in reimbursement for private tutoring and mileage, funding for continued private services, and mandatory staff training on dyslexia-appropriate instruction.

What Happened

The student was 11 years old and in sixth grade at the time of hearing, attending South Sutter Charter School — a public charter school that operated primarily through an independent study and homeschool model, meaning parents delivered most of the day-to-day academic instruction. The student had diagnoses of dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, and ADHD, and was eligible for special education under the categories of specific learning disability and speech and language impairment. Despite these significant challenges, the student was expected to make meaningful academic progress toward IEP goals in reading, writing, spelling, and math.

Beginning in the 2021–2022 school year, the student fell further and further behind. His special education teacher could not explain what reading methodology she used, had no training in structured literacy or Orton-Gillingham, and could not describe how she tracked his progress. The student developed school avoidance behaviors — hiding under desks, throwing papers, running away from his work — as his frustration mounted. By spring 2022, the parent was alarmed enough to request an independent evaluation. The district never called an emergency IEP meeting despite clear warning signs. Ultimately, parents enrolled the student in private tutoring at the READ Learning Center in October 2022, where he began making meaningful progress using the Barton Reading System — a structured, evidence-based program the district had never offered. The parent filed for due process in September 2023, and the district filed its own case seeking permission to implement its 2023 IEP without parental consent.

What the District Did Wrong

Failed to convene an IEP team meeting when the student wasn't making progress (Issue 1 — Student prevailed). South Sutter knew by at least winter 2022 that the student was not making meaningful progress toward his May 2021 IEP goals — his reading scores were stagnant, he was displaying school avoidance, and the parent was raising alarms. Despite this, the district did not call an IEP team meeting until the scheduled annual review in May 2022. This procedural violation denied parents the opportunity to participate in decisions about changes to their child's program.
Offered inappropriate and unmeasurable IEP goals across multiple years (Issues 2, 3, and 4 — Student prevailed). The May 2022, August 2022, October 2022, November 2022, and May 2023 IEPs all contained goals in reading, writing, and spelling that were either not adequately measurable, not based on the student's actual present levels, or set targets that were either unrealistically ambitious (e.g., jumping from 44 words per minute to 133 words per minute in one year) or insufficiently ambitious given the student's needs. Goals improperly combined separate skill areas (like reading fluency and comprehension into one goal) and lacked baseline data needed to track progress.
Failed to provide specialized academic instruction using any evidence-based, structured literacy methodology (Issues 2c, 3c, 4b — Student prevailed). South Sutter's special education teacher admitted she was untrained in any structured literacy program, could not explain what methodology she used with the student, and could not describe how she assessed his progress. The California Dyslexia Guidelines call for explicit, systematic, multisensory instruction for students with dyslexia. South Sutter's IEPs never named a methodology or curriculum. The amount of specialized academic instruction offered (ranging from 120–150 minutes per week) was also insufficient given the student's significant deficits in reading and writing.
Failed to prove its May 2023 IEP offered a FAPE (Issue 6 — Student prevailed). South Sutter filed its own due process case seeking permission to implement its May 4, 2023 IEP without parental consent. The ALJ denied this request, finding that the IEP still contained inappropriate goals in reading and writing and still failed to offer evidence-based, structured literacy instruction with sufficient frequency.
District prevailed on assistive technology and occupational therapy assessment claims (Issues 2d, 3d, 5a, 5b — District prevailed). The ALJ found that because the student's last three-year reevaluation had been conducted in May 2020, and fewer than three years had passed, the district had no independent obligation to assess the student in occupational therapy or assistive technology unless a parent or teacher specifically requested it. The parent had not made such a request before the district issued assessment plans in fall 2022. The district also prevailed on the extended school year services issue for the May 2022 IEP.

What Was Ordered

Reimbursement of $14,915 for costs the parents paid to READ Learning Center from October 4, 2022 through September 29, 2023 (the date the complaint was filed), to be paid within 45 calendar days.
Mileage reimbursement of $1,740 for 145 documented round trips (12 miles each) to READ Learning Center during the reimbursement period.
Funded continued placement at READ Learning Center for up to four hours per week for 31 school weeks from October 1, 2023 through May 24, 2024 (end of the 2023–2024 school year), at $70 per hour, not to exceed $8,680. Reimbursement conditioned on parents providing proof of attendance and billing.
Additional mileage reimbursement of up to $1,138 for travel to READ Learning Center during the October 2023–May 2024 funded period, based on 146 round trips at $0.65 per mile.
New IEP team meeting within 30 days, with the specific purpose of developing a new FAPE offer that names the curriculum and methodology to be used for specialized academic instruction in reading and writing, consistent with Education Code section 56335(a) and the California Dyslexia Guidelines. The district must pay for the family's expert (Dr. Erika Frieze) to attend, for up to two hours.
Mandatory staff training within 60 days, to be provided by a non-public agency or special education law firm specializing in this area. At least four hours of training must be delivered to South Sutter's entire special education department — including directors, program specialists, teachers, and case managers — on evidence-based, structured, explicit, multisensory instruction for students with dyslexia, and on how to write appropriate IEP goals. Training must be completed by August 31, 2024.
South Sutter may not implement its May 4, 2023 IEP without parental consent.

Why This Matters for Parents

Document your child's lack of progress in writing — and demand an IEP meeting if they're falling behind. The law requires the district to reconvene an IEP team meeting when a student is not making expected progress toward their goals, not just at the annual review. If your child is visibly struggling or you're seeing signs of frustration and avoidance, put your concerns in writing and formally request an IEP meeting. The district's failure to do this here was found to be a FAPE denial all by itself.
Ask your district specifically what reading methodology and curriculum they will use for your child with dyslexia. "Structured literacy" is not enough — the district must be able to tell you what evidence-based program (like Barton, Wilson, or Orton-Gillingham) they will use, who is trained to deliver it, and how often. If the IEP doesn't name a methodology and the teacher can't explain what they're doing, that is a significant red flag. California's Dyslexia Guidelines require explicit, multisensory, sequential instruction.
Keep records of the private services you pay for — they may be reimbursable. If the district is not providing an appropriate program and you find a private provider that works, document everything: what was provided, how often, what it cost, and how your child responded. Parents in this case received nearly $15,000 in reimbursement plus ongoing funding for private tutoring because they could show the private placement was appropriate and the district's program was not.
IEP goals must be measurable, based on your child's actual current performance, and realistically achievable in one year. Vague goals, goals that set the bar impossibly high (or too low), and goals that combine multiple skills without separate benchmarks are all legally deficient. Review every goal in your child's IEP and ask: How will progress be measured? What is the baseline? Is this target actually reachable in 12 months?
If you want your child assessed in occupational therapy or assistive technology, submit a written request — don't wait for the district to figure it out. The ALJ found that the district had no independent obligation to assess the student in these areas before the three-year reevaluation because the parent had not formally requested it. Sending a written request — via email or certified letter — starts the clock and creates a legal obligation for the district to respond within 15 days with an assessment plan.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Failed to convene an IEP team meeting when the student wasn't making progress (Issue 1 — Student prevailed). South Sutter knew by at least winter 2022 that the student was not making meaningful progress toward his May 2021 IEP goals — his reading scores were stagnant, he was displaying school avoidance, and the parent was raising alarms. Despite this, the district did not call an IEP team meeting until the scheduled annual review in May 2022. This procedural violation denied parents the opportunity to participate in decisions about changes to their child's program.
Offered inappropriate and unmeasurable IEP goals across multiple years (Issues 2, 3, and 4 — Student prevailed). The May 2022, August 2022, October 2022, November 2022, and May 2023 IEPs all contained goals in reading, writing, and spelling that were either not adequately measurable, not based on the student's actual present levels, or set targets that were either unrealistically ambitious (e.g., jumping from 44 words per minute to 133 words per minute in one year) or insufficiently ambitious given the student's needs. Goals improperly combined separate skill areas (like reading fluency and comprehension into one goal) and lacked baseline data needed to track progress.
Failed to provide specialized academic instruction using any evidence-based, structured literacy methodology (Issues 2c, 3c, 4b — Student prevailed). South Sutter's special education teacher admitted she was untrained in any structured literacy program, could not explain what methodology she used with the student, and could not describe how she assessed his progress. The California Dyslexia Guidelines call for explicit, systematic, multisensory instruction for students with dyslexia. South Sutter's IEPs never named a methodology or curriculum. The amount of specialized academic instruction offered (ranging from 120–150 minutes per week) was also insufficient given the student's significant deficits in reading and writing.
Failed to prove its May 2023 IEP offered a FAPE (Issue 6 — Student prevailed). South Sutter filed its own due process case seeking permission to implement its May 4, 2023 IEP without parental consent. The ALJ denied this request, finding that the IEP still contained inappropriate goals in reading and writing and still failed to offer evidence-based, structured literacy instruction with sufficient frequency.
District prevailed on assistive technology and occupational therapy assessment claims (Issues 2d, 3d, 5a, 5b — District prevailed). The ALJ found that because the student's last three-year reevaluation had been conducted in May 2020, and fewer than three years had passed, the district had no independent obligation to assess the student in occupational therapy or assistive technology unless a parent or teacher specifically requested it. The parent had not made such a request before the district issued assessment plans in fall 2022. The district also prevailed on the extended school year services issue for the May 2022 IEP.

What Was Ordered

Reimbursement of $14,915 for costs the parents paid to READ Learning Center from October 4, 2022 through September 29, 2023 (the date the complaint was filed), to be paid within 45 calendar days.
Mileage reimbursement of $1,740 for 145 documented round trips (12 miles each) to READ Learning Center during the reimbursement period.
Funded continued placement at READ Learning Center for up to four hours per week for 31 school weeks from October 1, 2023 through May 24, 2024 (end of the 2023–2024 school year), at $70 per hour, not to exceed $8,680. Reimbursement conditioned on parents providing proof of attendance and billing.
Additional mileage reimbursement of up to $1,138 for travel to READ Learning Center during the October 2023–May 2024 funded period, based on 146 round trips at $0.65 per mile.
New IEP team meeting within 30 days, with the specific purpose of developing a new FAPE offer that names the curriculum and methodology to be used for specialized academic instruction in reading and writing, consistent with Education Code section 56335(a) and the California Dyslexia Guidelines. The district must pay for the family's expert (Dr. Erika Frieze) to attend, for up to two hours.
Mandatory staff training within 60 days, to be provided by a non-public agency or special education law firm specializing in this area. At least four hours of training must be delivered to South Sutter's entire special education department — including directors, program specialists, teachers, and case managers — on evidence-based, structured, explicit, multisensory instruction for students with dyslexia, and on how to write appropriate IEP goals. Training must be completed by August 31, 2024.
South Sutter may not implement its May 4, 2023 IEP without parental consent.

Why This Matters for Parents

Document your child's lack of progress in writing — and demand an IEP meeting if they're falling behind. The law requires the district to reconvene an IEP team meeting when a student is not making expected progress toward their goals, not just at the annual review. If your child is visibly struggling or you're seeing signs of frustration and avoidance, put your concerns in writing and formally request an IEP meeting. The district's failure to do this here was found to be a FAPE denial all by itself.
Ask your district specifically what reading methodology and curriculum they will use for your child with dyslexia. "Structured literacy" is not enough — the district must be able to tell you what evidence-based program (like Barton, Wilson, or Orton-Gillingham) they will use, who is trained to deliver it, and how often. If the IEP doesn't name a methodology and the teacher can't explain what they're doing, that is a significant red flag. California's Dyslexia Guidelines require explicit, multisensory, sequential instruction.
Keep records of the private services you pay for — they may be reimbursable. If the district is not providing an appropriate program and you find a private provider that works, document everything: what was provided, how often, what it cost, and how your child responded. Parents in this case received nearly $15,000 in reimbursement plus ongoing funding for private tutoring because they could show the private placement was appropriate and the district's program was not.
IEP goals must be measurable, based on your child's actual current performance, and realistically achievable in one year. Vague goals, goals that set the bar impossibly high (or too low), and goals that combine multiple skills without separate benchmarks are all legally deficient. Review every goal in your child's IEP and ask: How will progress be measured? What is the baseline? Is this target actually reachable in 12 months?
If you want your child assessed in occupational therapy or assistive technology, submit a written request — don't wait for the district to figure it out. The ALJ found that the district had no independent obligation to assess the student in these areas before the three-year reevaluation because the parent had not formally requested it. Sending a written request — via email or certified letter — starts the clock and creates a legal obligation for the district to respond within 15 days with an assessment plan.